Warren Buffet touts single payer

Discuss local, regional, state, federal, and world politics. Keep it classy, Cleveland.

Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 20th, 2017, 3:31 am

And he probably knows more about how markets work than anybody. He said that in 1960 health care consumed about 5% of GDP; today in takes 17.4% http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/28/news/wa ... index.html He argues that creating a more efficient system, which is what single payer would be, as we pay by far the highest health care costs in the world http://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-b ... countries/

The delusion out there that some how the "free market" in health care that existed before Obamacare will return and drive down costs will save us; it will not. It created them. Health care costs rocketed out of control in the 80's 90's and 2000's under the "free market" (read health insurance). So, if you have a brain you would rule out going back to 2009 as a solution. But when you are so deeply ideological that facts simply do not matter in the face of what their beloved theories tell them, it is hopeless. There is a saying I have used here before by Thomas Huxley "The tragedy of science is the death of a beautiful idea at the hands of an ugly fact." https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/auth ... uxley.html

The truth is theories mean nothing if evidence disconfirms them. You would think they would teach that in school.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 20th, 2017, 12:23 pm

Unless a person can show how their "whatever" works better, I don't really care who says what or who wants what.
What is the difference if some Hollywood actor or actress says the same thing as Warren Buffet. There is no difference in the words.
Quoting the percentage of the Health care costs as part of our GDP is fine. Tell me why the state of California can not go ahead with single payer health care as they wanted to!
I agree that there amounts to what can be stated as somewhat delusional the belief that the "free market" has "the answer"
when it comes to a issue facing the public.
I think that it is fair to point out that there amounts to the same delusional belief that somehow "the government" has the answer to an issue facing the public. And for those that seek and believe that the government is the answer, they really only believe that the government has the ability to print money (an unlimited supply) or they can tax as much as they want to throw at a issue.
I agree with your last statement that theories mean nothing if evidence disconfirms them. You would think they would teach that in school." Now are you willing to apply that to the teaching of Evolution?
You quoted "Thomas Huxley - "The tragedy of science is the death of a beautiful idea at the hands of an ugly fact." https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/auth ... uxley.html
Thomas Huxley also said: "It is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural. Groups having the morphological character of species - distinct and permanent races in fact - have been so produced over and over again, but there is no positive evidence, at present, that any group of animals has by variation and selective breeding, given rise to another group.... Mr. Darwin does not so much prove that natural selection does occur, as that it must occur."
And like you, I have used this quote before.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 20th, 2017, 1:10 pm

Michaels good to hear from you. Good to hear from anybody.

Let's not make this about evolution; lets stick to the knitting. Abundant evidence is out there that single payer or any universal care plan is better than private insurance; all you have to do is read the data. This one source serves as a perfect example of how to look at health care in countries comparable to the United States (ie. places with good sanitation and advanced technology, the OECD). We pay way more for health care than the other countries and really get mediocre results at best. And over time Obamacare has not nearly been the driver of costs that conservatives allege http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA

And between its implementation and now, Obamacare has dropped personal bankruptcies by almost 50%. It has really helped people https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-facts/

Warren Buffet understands economics better than almost anyone. He did not just offer an opinion; he gave facts. Money going to healthcare is taken away from other uses. In 1960 we spent 5% of GDP on health care; we now spend 17.4% on health care. That is 12 cents on the dollar that cannot be used in other sectors of the economy. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... stem.html#! It would also take a huge load off business.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 20th, 2017, 9:25 pm

Why didn't California enact single payer health care? (Second time i have asked the question)
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 20th, 2017, 11:12 pm

Why didn't California enact single payer health care? (Second time i have asked the question)
A better question might be: why does every other advanced nation in the world have universal health care except us? Now California had its rate of uninsured cut in half in the first year of Obamacare. So Obamacare is working. Right now the government pays 71% of health care costs in California. I would image that their will be lots of phasing out too.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 21st, 2017, 7:30 am

A better reply would be: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/24/californ ... ntary.html
by Jake Novak - 5/24/ 17
"Maybe we should rename so-called single payer health care and call it "single slayer."

Because as the politicians in California just found out, providing government paid-for health care isn't just expensive, it's more expensive than everything else... combined.

That's what a new study done by California's state senate determined this week. Here are the very ugly numbers:

The annual price tag for single payer health care in the Golden State would be a whopping $400 billion. (400-179.5=220.5 Billion in the red!!)
The total amount of money allocated for the California state budget for the coming fiscal year is $179.5 billion
TILT!
Okay, that "TILT!" part wasn't officially a mathematical or economic term. But you get the idea. Even with the $200 billion California currently gets from federal and other sources for its health costs, the state would still have to more than double its entire budget to cover the additional costs of providing universal health care.

The study tried to be a bit more optimistic, noting that private employers currently pay between $100 and $150 billion per year to provide health insurance for their workers and hypothesizing that money "could" be made available to the single payer plan. But that assumes those employers and employees would be okay with choosing a government-run option instead of their private insurance.

Yeah, none of that is going to work.

The good news is that this study wasn't conducted by some right wing or libertarian group, but the Democrat super majority controlled California state legislature. And that means the harsh realities of what it costs to provide this long-held dream of the liberal Democrats in America can finally start being debunked in favor of more workable options.

Let's stop here for a second and clarify something that's been lost in the eternally annoying debate about whether health care is a right or a privilege. The only human right connected to health care that isn't ruinous to all other rights and responsibilities is the right of an urgently injured or dying person to get emergency care, no questions initially asked.

Once that care is administered, the care givers and/or those who paid for the care have a right to ask for some kind of payment. This is a basic ethical truth that, thanks to the bean counters in Sacramento, now has even more economic truth to back it up.

Okay, let's get back to some other realities. We now have comprehensive proof that providing government paid health care would sacrifice all those other core rights that the left, right, and just about everyone in the middle believes in.

Let's start with K-12 and higher education, which California currently spends more than it does on health care according to the state's own itemized budget figures.

So we must ask: Is it worth it to sacrifice our children's education for single payer health care?

Then you'd have to do some serious cutting to the billions the state spends to protect natural resources and the environment. The right to live in a world free of the horrors of climate change is also a right a lot of people in the same Democratic Party keep telling us is the most important thing.

So we must ask: Is it worth it to sacrifice our environment for single payer health care?

And then there's the legal right to having... legal rights. Right now, California spends about $121 billion each year to keep the judicial system, police, and jails open and running.

So we must ask: Is it worth it to sacrifice our public safety for single payer health care?

Take your time to answer, but that's the thing about rights. It's great when we commit to providing and protecting a large number of them in theory. But what do you do when one right crowds out or even cancels out another?

The simple answer is that some of those rights need to be prioritized and even rationed. Unless of course, we stop talking so much about rights and more about responsibilities. And right now, the California government may want to take the responsibility for everyone's health care for the political power it will give the state, but it certainly cannot afford it.

And this report should also stop the incessant argument from the left that single payer somehow saves money. It certainly doesn't save the state money. And even if a state like California would make the outrageous decision to double its taxes and other fees to somehow cover the cost of single payer, that would cost the private sector billions of dollars in lost income and jobs.

Health care costs are always hard to control because of the constancy of demand. But instead of spreading the cost around and thinning it out, single payer concentrates it to the government to the detriment of everything else that government and society want to achieve.

It's understandable why so much of the public is afraid of a more free market health care system. Most Americans get a weak economic education as it is, and those who do often get one that's biased against the free market.

But now California has given the public solid reasons to really fear single payer because it's obvious how much we'd all have to sacrifice to get it. Those who want more government paid health care must now be forced to explain what other key rights and expenditures need to be sacrificed for that dream.

Meanwhile, free market advocates need to seize on this California news as well and explain how the private sector can provide care without bankrupting its customers.

No matter where the debate goes from there, at least now we're forced to stick to the real numbers. At least the government of California has adequately provided that."
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 21st, 2017, 8:20 am

So did Warren Buffet who you say "probably know more about how markets works than anybody" show the California State Legislature how to make single payer health care affordable for their state?
Or did he just say that he (who can afford to do anything that he wants to do) believes in single payer health care?
Because there are a lot of things people would like to have that they can not afford to do it.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 21st, 2017, 10:58 am

You are making an apples to oranges comparison. You are talking about a state. I have given you information that shows the entire world works better with single payer or universal coverage; you counter it with a report you claim is "better" about a single states study. I do not see It quite frankly. Are Americans so inferior to other countries they cannot figure out how to run a health care system better? Our Canadian neighbors do it better than we do and on less money. So if it is so bad down here that we run these deficits we have to ask "what is wrong with America"?

Also, that is single payer for one state. We are talking about the entire country which would make a huge difference.

One thing you miss is that taxes would replace insurance, making up much of the bill. If money is repurposed then what difference does it make UMass Amherst did a study that said it would cost 330 billion dollars 225 billion in repurposed Medicaid and Medicare dollars and 106 billion in taxes. I bet California companies pay that in premiums for health insurance at least. They would now have this money and the state nurses association has offered a 2.3% sales tax to offset that. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essenti ... story.html

Now many law makers are concerned that the bill is premature. But the position of Republicans is the one you are pushing, and it is inflated over the UMass study. Remember California is a big state that already puts out 225 billion a year in Medicaid and Medicare according to the Times article. If it is true then 106 billion dollars in additional taxes probably beats by a fairly wide margin what corporations and folks on the individual market pay for health insurance.

Now the facts are that the entire advanced world, which does universal health care, has lower cost. You do not address that but expect me to follow the shell game of assumptions that the California legislature laid out about health care, putting 400 billion dollar price tag on what is likely less than that.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 21st, 2017, 9:51 pm

leftyg wrote:You are making an apples to oranges comparison. No, i am asking how you expect the entire country to pay for single payer when one state, perhaps the richest in the country with the highest taxes can not afford it?
And stop with your "entire world" has universal health care". Comparing countries is more like comparing apples to oranges. Obamacare was a failure and it promised affordability. Going to single payer is going to cost more. The article is not a shell game. It asks how to pay for it and points out other state expenditures. But you ignore that. Just have the government tax the people more and print whatever cash is needed
You are talking about a state. I have given you information that shows the entire world works better with single payer or universal coverage; you counter it with a report you claim is "better" about a single states study. I do not see It quite frankly. Are Americans so inferior to other countries they cannot figure out how to run a health care system better? Our Canadian neighbors do it better than we do and on less money. So if it is so bad down here that we run these deficits we have to ask "what is wrong with America"?

Also, that is single payer for one state. We are talking about the entire country which would make a huge difference.

One thing you miss is that taxes would replace insurance, making up much of the bill. If money is repurposed then what difference does it make UMass Amherst did a study that said it would cost 330 billion dollars 225 billion in repurposed Medicaid and Medicare dollars and 106 billion in taxes. I bet California companies pay that in premiums for health insurance at least. They would now have this money and the state nurses association has offered a 2.3% sales tax to offset that. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essenti ... story.html

Now many law makers are concerned that the bill is premature. But the position of Republicans is the one you are pushing, and it is inflated over the UMass study. Remember California is a big state that already puts out 225 billion a year in Medicaid and Medicare according to the Times article. If it is true then 106 billion dollars in additional taxes probably beats by a fairly wide margin what corporations and folks on the individual market pay for health insurance.

Now the facts are that the entire advanced world, which does universal health care, has lower cost. You do not address that but expect me to follow the shell game of assumptions that the California legislature laid out about health care, putting 400 billion dollar price tag on what is likely less than that.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 22nd, 2017, 2:20 am

Here is the problem in a nut shell. Conservatives do this a lot: they throw out numbers without putting them in context. Do you realize that the cost of health care per person in the United states is approaching if not exceeding 10 thousand dollars per person http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... erspective> California has a population of 39.25 million people https://www.bing.com/search?q=ipoulatio ... 84c1f07ea2. If you do the math and multiply the population by the cost of heath care you get 400 billion dollars. THE SAME! And the U Mass Amherst study puts the cost at about 331 billion.

Well worst case they break even; best case scenario they reduce costs by about 1600 dollars per person


You wrote, lapping up what Novak said:
And stop with your "entire world" has universal health care". Comparing countries is more like comparing apples to oranges. Obamacare was a failure and it promised affordability. Going to single payer is going to cost more. The article is not a shell game. It asks how to pay for it and points out other state expenditures. But you ignore that. Just have the government tax the people more and print whatever cash is needed

You see what Novak missed in his flawed analysis was that health care is more than just a right; in it a necessity. Limiting people to emergency care merely kicks the can down the road until there is a problem. The dumbest idea conservatives have is this notion of catastrophic insurance; it will encourage people not to get the tests they need to catch illnesses before they become catastrophic.

BTW comparative studies of comparable societies is one of the best ways to pinpoint potential problems. Distorting data and fudging statistics is not. Numbers need to be in their full context to be compared. And the really dumb thing I do not understand is why, you would rather give your money to an insurance company in whose vested interest it is to not give you care instead of a government in whose interest it is to get you the care as efficiently as it can. And stop believing dopey shit like "job killing Obamacare." Since Obamacare passed, unemployment has gone down about five percent
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 22nd, 2017, 2:16 pm

Conservatives do this a lot: they solve the problems created by liberals.

Leftyg, do you realize that there are Democrats in California and the Democrats in California probably know what the cost of health care per person in the United states is even though they are more concerned about the cost of health care in their own state of California. Did you know Leftyg that Mr. Novak said that:
the politicians in California just found out, providing government paid-for health care isn't just expensive, it's more expensive than everything else... combined. That's what a new study done by California's state senate determined this week.

Mr Novak also:
this study wasn't conducted by some right wing or libertarian group, but the Democrat super majority controlled California state legislature.

It is this same Democrat super majority controlled California state legislature that said that
The annual price tag for single payer health care in the Golden State would be a whopping $400 billion. They did not say that the worst case for their state would be that with single payer health care they would break even. And they did not say that the people in California would reduce their health care costs by about 1600 dollars per person.
I am pretty sure that the Democrats in California believe like the rest of us that health care is a necessity. And I am sure that the Democrats in California know about Canada and other countries that have universal health care. So again, why didn't the Democrats in California pass and enact single payer health care for their own state of California?

And stop denying that Obamacare isn't a failure.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 22nd, 2017, 11:10 pm

I know there are Democrats in the legislature, lots of them. After all this is California we are talking about.

I am talking about Mr. Novak. He did not give his numbers their full context All I got from him was a number 400 billion without any context which is that it is about what California probably pays now

The annual price tag for single payer health care in the Golden State would be a whopping $400 billion. They did not say that the worst case for their state would be that with single payer health care they would break even. And they did not say that the people in California would reduce their health care costs by about 1600 dollars per person. Are you capable of sentient thought? Seriously. A 400 billion dollar price tag is what you would expect for a state with almost 40 million people giving our per capita health care costs. And you ignored the UMass estimate completely. It was 331 billion dollars. You see Michaels you have to back up what you say. 400 billion is what the numbers say if you can do simple math
I am pretty sure that the Democrats in California believe like the rest of us that health care is a necessity. And I am sure that the Democrats in California know about Canada and other countries that have universal health care. So again, why didn't the Democrats in California pass and enact single payer health care for their own state of California?Yes they do, and they know Canadians citizen live longer and are more satisfied with their health care. I do not know who has been lying to you, but tell them to stop. Here is an article about how right wing politicians lie about Canada in particular http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/trudy-lieb ... 83089.html The bill did not fail; it passed http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/01/c ... care-plan/ What it is doing is waiting or a way to fund it http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/23/b ... ncomplete/

And stop denying that Obamacare isn't a failure. Tell you what Michaels, if you stop lying about Obamacare, I will stop telling the truth about free market dolts like Novak. Our health care system is a failure and that is why Obamacare was created. It is not perfect, but it is better than what it replaced. Don't believe the rights lies.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 23rd, 2017, 12:06 pm

[quote="leftyg"]I know there are Democrats in the legislature, lots of them. After all this is California we are talking about. Yes it is California we are talking about, so try to focus on that.

I am talking about Mr. Novak. He did not give his numbers their full context ? what do you think is missing here that would provide you with any more information that you need? If the total amount of money allocated for the upcoming fiscal year is 179.5 billion, than using the UMass cost estimate of 331 billion dollars still makes single payer health care for California out of reach for the people in California. (331-179.5=151.5 billion in the red!) Now using the California study numbers that estimates what private employers provide "between 100 and 150 billion", lets use the high end number of 150 billion and add that to the California budget (lets forget for now that this means stripping away the employer insurance option). If you add the "150 billion" to the state budget then the California state budget is still 1.5 billion short of just paying for single payer health care! Where is the money to cover ANYTHING ELSE IN THE STATE BUDGET?!

You see Leftyg, if I back up to what you say, your still proposing a financially unworkable plan.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 23rd, 2017, 1:29 pm

Yes it is California we are talking about, so try to focus on that.
Actually this thread is about Warren Buffet's idea about single payer health care. Your article from Novak was one small example of it that demonstrated only that single payer would cost about the same amount of money to serve all Californians as opposed to serving a portion of them with the current system and hardly overcomes the mountain of evidence for single pay, as a matter or fact it does nothing at all because the numbers are not put in context.
You wrote in red
what do you think is missing here that would provide you with any more information that you need? If the total amount of money allocated for the upcoming fiscal year is 179.5 billion, than using the UMass cost estimate of 331 billion dollars still makes single payer health care for California out of reach for the people in California. You did not read the UMass study because it said that 225 billion would be repurposed, not 179.5 billion which would leave 106 billion in taxes. So you put garbage in and got garbage out (GIGO). Money that was for health insurance would then be repurposed for the single payer plan. The legislature is finding ways to add taxes. Anyway, 400 billion is what your would expect California to pay: they have a population of just under 40 million an health care cost about ten thousand per person. Do the math. You see Michaels, the Republican legislature and Novak tried to make that sensational when it simply describes the expenditure of the status quo
You continue
(331-179.5=151.5 billion in the red! Now using the California study numbers that estimates what private employers provide "between 100 and 150 billion", lets use the high end number of 150 billion and add that to the California budget (lets forget for now that this means stripping away the employer insurance option). If you add the "150 billion" to the state budget then the California state budget is still 1.5 billion short of just paying for single payer health care! Where is the money to cover ANYTHING ELSE IN THE STATE BUDGET?!
All that money could be repurposed from health insurance. It could be a tax on employers. BUT STILL YOU USED THE WRONG numbers. Right now 71% of California's 367 billion dollar health care budget comes from public funds, or about 261 billion dollars already http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/august/go ... california. 29% is about 106 billion dollars that could be repurposed.

You see Leftyg, if I back up to what you say, your still proposing a financially unworkable plan.
No it was not financially unworkable. You never answered the question why private health insurance is better because you can not. You simply take it as a matter of fact that the private sector does everything better than the public sector when that is clearly not true to anybody who studies it. What the UMass study indicated was that moving to single payer would save Californians 36 billion in health care costs. (367-331)

This quote is from Count Leo Tolstoy and is in the preface to The Big Short by Michael Lewis about the subprime meltdown. It goes: "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already: but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."-Leo Tolstoy, 1897.

I think these are the difficulties of the free market ideologue. No amount of factual information counters what s/he thinks s/he knows.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 23rd, 2017, 2:03 pm

Butters, passed the "California Red Herring" you put up, what other evidence do you have against single payer? And why are health statistics and economic statistics that overwhelmingly favor single payer or universal coverage from other countries worthless when they are not to Warren Buffet and about any other sound thinker out there? To dismiss them and then enshrine an article by Jake Novak about California that, when I addressed it was full of holes and half truths, seems foolish. BTW do not forget to comment on my previous post.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 23rd, 2017, 5:10 pm

Leftyg, I looked at your references. From http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/august/government-pays-for-71-percent-of-health-care-in-california
By Andrea Sorensen, Narissa J. Nonzee, and Gerald F. Kominski UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Health Policy Brief, August 2016
Under Summary:
In California, personal health care expenditures are estimated to total more than $367 billion in 2016.
That is an estimate of total costs: State budget plus personal out of pocket expenses. $367 billion is not California's budget for health care.
Under Health Care Expenditures in California:
our estimates suggest that 71 percent of these expenditures will be paid for with public funds.

Under Conclusion and Recommendations:
If public funds continue to comprise the majority of total health care expenditures, it will be increasingly important for policymakers to consider whether these public funds are being distributed efficiently and effectively, and whether alternatives such as a state single-payer system would be a more effective use of public and private health spending.
Now this policy brief does not come out and adamantly state that a single-payer system would be a more effective use of public and private health spending. And part of the reason why I believe that they do not is because their estimates of the breakdown of the personal health care expenditures. The breakdown estimates include tax subsidies for employer sponsored insurance (12%), government spending for public employee insurance (4%), county health expenditures (3%), other government programs (3%), and ACA marketplace exchange subsidies (2 percent). Under conclusions and recommendations the policy brief talks about "an increasing number of individuals gain(ing) health insurance coverage under the ACA" (which I believe is still in effect in California), and "health care expenditure growth rates continue to increase." Now again these are estimates based upon 2016 data. Any changes to these percentages may already be reflected in the gross numbers presented by Mr. Novak. Still based on the knowledge available the people in California were not convinced nor persuaded to go to a single payer system,
Under Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.
California has previously made efforts to adopt a single payer program, but they have failed - in the election booth, in the state legislature, and on the governor’s desk.

That is the bottom line.
You said: "Anyway, 400 billion is what your would expect California to pay." If that is accurate then repurposed money from present expenditures is to be expected. There still would be a need to find out how to supply the (roughly) additional 181 billion necessary for the California state budget. [Umass single payer cost estimate of 331 billion, total amount of money allocated for the California state budget for the coming fiscal year is $179.5 billion. That would leave 151.5 billion in the red. If we use 400 billion according to your figures, then California winds up with 220.5 billion in the red.
Now go back to the policy brief summary where health care expenditures for California in 2016 were estimated to total more than $367 billion. This comes down to showing how a single payer system could be implemented, which is what I said in my first post.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 23rd, 2017, 10:39 pm

What states spend on health care and what they budget are different things. No use quibbling because in a state the size of California probably should hit close to its budget every year if they make decent estimates. And the 71% *figure is pretty high. America got about 3!% of all health care from government in 2012 http://center-forward.org/wp-content/up ... date-2.pdf It is doubtlessly higher now but how much I do not know for sure. I am going to guess it is not anywhere near 71% like California. But California's health care costs are not out of line high

You write:
If public funds continue to comprise the majority of total health care expenditures, it will be increasingly important for policymakers to consider whether these public funds are being distributed efficiently and effectively, and whether alternatives such as a state single-payer system would be a more effective use of public and private health spending.
This is the genius of single payer. Overtime it can get rid of duplications of care provided by competing agencies. That is why all these European countries and OECD countries around the world have lower health care costs than the United States and better results. This data is two years old, but it shows not only the dramatically lower cost of health care in other countries but the dramatically better results in those countries https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bu ... /75771044/

*Despite this high figure of 71% California is about the least dependent state in the nation on the federal government, ranking 46th in dependency in a recent year https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-l ... ment/2700/
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 24th, 2017, 1:36 am

Here is an article explaining why Canada is doing so much better than us as are most of our Western European allies: they do not rely on free market magical thinking that some how lower taxes on the rich result in more revenue to the government http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... spartandhp.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Scorpion » July 25th, 2017, 9:43 am

Single payer is not the panacea you make it out to be.
A man wants to have sex or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, its like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.
Scorpion
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby wobbly » July 25th, 2017, 10:37 am

Scorpion wrote:Single payer is not the panacea you make it out to be.


Having been covered by both private (employer) provided group health insurance and public health insurance (Medicare) I can say that the public Medicare coverage is as good if not better than the private coverage I had. Costs and coverage are more stable with medicare than with the private group coverage. I don't have to worry about going out of network because I am covered with any Dr./ hospital who accepts Medicare. Administrative Costs are considerably lower with the Medicare vs private insurance. Public plans are nonprofit and don't have to answer to stock holders regarding return on investment. Public plans are able to negotiate lower costs and better coverage than private plans. Single payer insurance may not be a panacea, but it is better and more cost effective than private health insurance.

Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $18,142 this year, up 3 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $5,277 towards the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Education Trust 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey. http://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/ ... ts-survey/

Public vs. Private Health Insurance on Controlling Spending http://www.kff.org/health-costs/perspec ... g-spending
/
Image
“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.”
― Richard Dawkins

Tea Party: Brewing Extremism Since 2010.
wobbly
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 12:49 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 25th, 2017, 12:23 pm

I enjoy how proponents of private insurance like to dabble in specific examples that support their case like the example Michaels used about California which when investigated was nothing more than numbers used without a context like "400 billion" which is what you would expect a state as large California to spend.

And the right ignores the results of other advanced countries from around the world because, like Michaels, they say it is apples to oranges and it does not apply.

They cannot say that here, and I like what the article said:
No single fact can settle the long-running debate of whether public or private health insurance is preferable. But by one basic metric, the rate of increase in per capita spending, public insurance has an edge.
http://www.kff.org/health-costs/perspec ... -spending/
It is true; this is America; this is our cost increase on the three largest systems of care. This is the overview, and the private system seems wanting.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 25th, 2017, 9:29 pm

Leftyg, you enjoy being contentious, obnoxious, and seek opportunities to attack and smear anything outside of your warped, ideological, and partisan position.
The example I shared for your thread on Warren Buffet was appropriate and fair to your one sided advocacy for single payer health care. Scorpion is correct. Single payer is not the panacea that you make it out to be. Comparing different countries is more like comparing apples and oranges than states versus country implementation scenarios. While Canada perhaps is a more reasonable comparison, your own references point out particular negatives from countries including Canada that use a single payer or universal type health care system. And the particular metrics that you choose to use can be helpful in illustrating parts of the problem without necessarily bringing anyone to an answer to the problem.
Your last reference frames the preferences fairly
http://www.kff.org/health-costs/perspective/public-vs-private-health-insurance-on-controlling-spending/
Advocates of public coverage tend to like its relative simplicity, uniform guaranteed benefits, and lower overhead costs, as well as the ability of large public insurance programs to use their purchasing power to leverage changes in the health-care system. Advocates of private coverage favor the greater choice it can offer consumers and the competition that can foster in the marketplace. For some people, preferences for public or private coverage are largely ideological.

I look at health care which is what I and most people are most concerned about. The vehicle that the health care we receive is not the first thing that I nor the majority look at. To me it is not about private versus public so much as it is how can we get the appropriate coverage that we need at a fair price and in a reasonable manner.
You did not like my CNBC reference but the Washington Post said the same thing in describing the out of reach costs that the single payer system would mean to California. And "saying" that a single payer would streamline costs does not mean that it will reduce the actual costs. If you were to totally eliminate the fragmented system of health care expenditures in California you would reduce the paperwork, for submitting claims but you would also reduce the subsidies that many of these services received, and eliminate jobs from the people who facilitated these services.
Your USA reference https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/14/24-7-wall-st-countries-spend-most-health-care/75771044/presents some interesting facts and some questions that throwing money at through taxes cannot explain.
Comparing the United States to Luxembourg:
The United States:
> Health expenditure per capita: $8,713
> Expenditure as a pct. of GDP: 16.4%
> Obesity rate: 35.3%
> Life expectancy: 78.8

9. Luxembourg
>Health expenditure per capita: $4,371
> Expenditure as a pct. of GDP: N/A
> Obesity rate: 22.7%
> Life expectancy: 81.9

In the small, affluent European nation of Luxembourg, health care spending per capita is among the highest in the world at $4,371. As is nearly always the case, the lion’s share of funding comes from the public sector. Just $762 of Luxembourg’s health expenditure comes from private sources. Luxembourg is quite wealthy. With GDP per capita of $91,048, country residents are the wealthiest in the world. From 2005 through 2013, Luxembourg’s economy contracted by 2.1%, however, unlike all other countries spending the most on health care.

Strong economic conditions and high health care spending help reduce health risk factors and improve medical treatments. Due in part to these improvements, the incidence of mortality from cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke in Luxembourg was reduced by roughly two-thirds since 1990. Only two other countries reported such a strong decline in mortality from cerebrovascular diseases.
.
So Luxembourg residents are the wealthiest in the world. They can easily absorb what ever taxes are or may need to be placed on them for their health care. This is not the case in the United States.
Luxembourg spends nearly half of what the United States pays, and lives a little more that three years longer than people on average in the United States.
Yet living longer is not necessarily living better.
Norway has a relatively high incidence of cancer at 318 cases per 100,000 people each year. However, this is largely due to the long life expectancy

It is clear that the amount of money thrown at a problem does not necessarily translate to getting what you want from it. There are other factors such as demographics that have more of an impact than simply the type of health care system that is proposed here. Changing from our present health care practice to a single payer system then may not improve upon the obesity rates, life expectancy, or infant mortality rates. And if there is to be improvements in those areas it may take a decade or longer to catch up to the rest of the world in these areas. It may also be possible to do the same in the present system by focusing our efforts more on education than in health care.
Sweden for example:
Despite universal health insurance coverage, Swedes visit the doctor relatively infrequently. With an average of 2.9 physician consultations per person per year, people in Sweden see a doctor less often than people in most other countries reviewed

Then there is the obvious problems in the differences of size of the countries. Comparing Luxembourg to the United States is ridiculous. The size of the Country and the density of the population contribute to the transportation problems involved in not only serving people but in stocking of supplies to hospitals, clinics, and doctor offices. Changing from our current health care system to a single payer does not remove these challenges.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » July 26th, 2017, 4:30 pm

Your example was appropriate to show that 400 billion dollars is what California would pay with our current system. It was one example and what is your point? Single payer is not a panacea, but it is a damn sight better than what we have here right now. Everybody deserves the right to see a doctor and when they can they have better lives. The Canadians think their health care system is better than ours (unfortunately my computer at home is down and I have to use one at work that does not fly around the web quite so well).

The last reference was not mine; it was Wobbly's and it was very good. There is an example of how public plans save money. You have to remember that private insurance creates "perverse incentives" that distort markets. Actually paying for health care might bring down prices because it gets the middle man out of the way, the insurance company. But what happens to those who cannot afford to pay? And if you think about it, health insurance companies have no incentive to provide care and a powerful one not to.

Again your CNBC source failed to mention that 400 billion dollars is about what you would expect Californians to pay. You did not put the number in context. As afar as eliminating jobs, that is a good think if they are superfluous. You could argue that ditch diggers lost a way of life when back hoes began to be used or that Henry Ford put lots of blacksmiths out of work. Those people will find other jobs as money is freed up to become more productive.

And the article does deal with some countries of varying sizes. But France and Germany (I think) are on the list and they together have about half our population. You are right there are other factors besides universal or single payer health care to consider, but moving to single payer while not a panacea is an improvement, much bigger than kicking between 15 million and 32 million people off the health care they have.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » July 31st, 2017, 9:11 pm

[urlhttp://freebeacon.com/issues/sanders-has-trouble-explaining-how-pay-single-payer/][/url]
Posted on 7/30/17
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Sunday was pressed to explain why a single-payer health care system was rejected in Vermont and California, two staunchly Democratic states.

CNN host Jake Tapper said that California and Vermont are "cobalt blue states" and asked how single-payer could be affordable at the national level if they rejected the system at the state level because of the expense.

Sanders pushed back against Tapper, citing "studies that [he] has seen," and said that single-payer would save the average family "significant sums of money."
"Sanders said that the studies he has seen say that single-payer would save the average family ("significant sums of money"). Did Senator Sanders "see" the report by the Tax Policy regarding the single payer proposal that he made last year? That report said that Senator Sander's proposal would
increase public and private health care spending by $5.5 trillion over 10 years.


Senator Sanders said that the health care system in the United States has not been able to adopt single-payer because it is so complicated.

Single-payer failed to pass in both California and Vermont after lawmakers were unable to figure out how to fund the system. Voters in Colorado also rejected single-payer last year.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 1st, 2017, 9:03 am

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/07/31/sanders-tapper-battle-over-plausibility-of-single-payer-n2362448

“Why couldn’t this happen in Vermont, then?” Tapper asked. “What’s the issue in Vermont? Vermont would be a perfect test case.”

It sure would. Although the Vermont legislature passed single payer in 2011, they soon gave it up after it failed miserably. The governor admitted he couldn't pay for it.

Sanders, however, blamed the failure on politics.
When a progressive advocates their solution to a problem and it fails, you can count on that progressive to put the blame for the failure on something other than their proposed solution.
3d2e78fe-b4af-453a-ae7d-cbf29e872fce (1).jpg
Senator Sanders and single-payer
3d2e78fe-b4af-453a-ae7d-cbf29e872fce (1).jpg (30.98 KiB) Viewed 3574 times
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 1st, 2017, 11:14 am

I love all this talk from right wing journals. I see an article in the Federalist that says single payer would be more expensive. The problem is evidently Americans are stupid. Look why would you rather pay an insurance company to provide care than a single payer? Everywhere in the world single payer and nonprofit insurance have acted to reduce cost. I won't clutter up this post with evidence because it has been abundantly clear.

I will quote an article about why:
“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/s ... ont-113711

Now Vermont has nearly the most expensive health insurance in the country with an average cost of $5749 per person. http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-in ... tatistics/ If they just got rid of private insurance, all that money could be devoted to a single payer program where costs are less everywhere single payer is used. Somehow the cost of health insurance does not compute with conservatives, but the taxes for single payer do. (They would rather pay an insurance company almost $6000 as opposed to paying the government $4500.)

Look I know Vermont is the bluest of the blue, but there may be a legal challenge to getting rid of health insurance in the state. It remains that Warren Buffet likes it as well as most economists and many other nations in the world who have it. I do not think Canada will trade health care systems with us (don't bother bring up an anecdote about somebody coming from Canada to get help in the United States; it is very rare).
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 1st, 2017, 8:37 pm

Leftyg,
How is it that in this country we have better care, success, and quicker access for some medical issues and we do not have single-payer health care? The answer to that question raises the fair question that if single-payer is too expensive here, what can we do to make our health care better? The other side is also fair. How is it that in other countries that do have single-payer health care they do better in some medical areas by spending less money? These are paradoxical facts. But since both are true, perhaps we have more than two solutions for health care? Maybe the best health care that we can have right now is neither our current health care, nor single-payer? This is a reasoned approach.
It is clear that here we are willing to experiment and try different things. The results of those experiments are also very clear. Like a scientific experiment, if you construct a health care hypothesis, and your experiment does not substantiate your hypothesis, then your on the wrong track.
You asked if I was capable of sentient thought because I do not agree with you. But if your Democrats, try your idea, and it fails, should they abandon all reason and still implement it just to prove to others that they are capable of sentient thought? Even though your Democrats did exactly that with Obamacare, the intelligent answer is that you should not try to implement something that fails.
The fact is that people in our country jump the borders looking for more medicine, more choices to medicines that are not sold here, and to try medical procedures not approved of here. There are also people of other countries, (not just Canada) who come here for various medical procedures because they have long waiting periods for certain medical procedures in their own country. Or they come here because of our expertise in certain areas, or for a combination of factors that can be summarized as a quality of care determination.
It is not anecdotal to bring up examples of something when you know that the example is not a trivial matter nor a rare event. And it is more than revealing to point out that besides Warren Buffet, the people (mostly Democrats) in California and Vermont, who think like you at least in regards to single-payer could not reconcile their sentient thoughts in this matter with the financial responsibilities they were faced with.
You are quick to label conservatives negatively when they don't accept your proposed living wage, or raising the minimum wage to whatever you want it to be. But you do not attach the same negative labels to Democratic states and local governments that do not do the same thing. Which makes you and others who do the same unprincipled hypocrites.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 1st, 2017, 10:59 pm

How is it that in this country we have better care, success, and quicker access for some medical issues and we do not have single-payer health care?
Have you read anything on our health care system?
We are last among 16 nations in deaths from preventable disease http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... ble-deaths
The highest rate of death by violence, by a stunning margin
The highest rate of death by car accident, also dramatically so
The highest chance that a child will die before age 5
The second-highest rate of death by coronary heart disease
The second-highest rate of death by lung disease
The highest teen pregnancy rate
The highest rate of women dying due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... st/267045/

So we are nt that good. Save all the faux padding on the back. Essentially you are wrong. We have a slightly better cancer recovery rate and stroke recovery rate, but it is small potatoes compared to what we do not do well. We could do better

One of the anecdotes that is constantly brought is how Canadians are flocking to the US for health care, and Michaels that just is not true:
A study called "Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,” Health Affairs, May 2002. studied weighed in on this issue:

"The study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.".
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/go ... -care.html

And Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their health care system to ourswith 86.2% supporting their system. https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/new ... alth-care/

The point is that saying we have the best health care system in the world, is not supportable by the evidence.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 4th, 2017, 10:58 am

leftyg wrote:
How is it that in this country we have better care, success, and quicker access for some medical issues and we do not have single-payer health care?
Have you read anything on our health care system? Why yes I have. But my having read about our health care has nothing to do with you answering the questions I asked of you. You who pretend to act like an authority on this subject.

We are last among 16 nations in deaths from preventable disease http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... ble-deaths
The highest rate of death by violence, by a stunning margin
The highest rate of death by car accident, also dramatically so
The highest chance that a child will die before age 5
The second-highest rate of death by coronary heart disease
The second-highest rate of death by lung disease
The highest teen pregnancy rate
The highest rate of women dying due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... st/267045/
Leftyg, you said: "So we are not that good." * Now pause for a moment and try and find out from this thread and other threads what I said. Not what you wanted to interpret from what I said, find out what I said.
So we are nt that good. Save all the faux padding the plural for the idiom "pat on the back" is not padding. on the back. Essentially you are wrong. Essentially, I may be inaccurate when considering the whole picture of our health care, and I do not know all the variables of single payer health care, but my questions to you, based upon what I do know, and have stated are still valid.We have a slightly better cancer recovery rate and stroke recovery rate, II am glad you mentioned this.but it is small potatoes compared to what we do not do well. We could do better Yes, Leftyg,
I agree with you on this. We can do better.


From the USA Reference: "Countries Spending the most on health care. by Sam Stebbins & Thomas C. Frohlich - 24/7 Wall St., 11/14/15
These are the ten countries listed in that article ranked in order of amount spent from first being the most spent by a country to least spent (of the countries listed)
1. United States
2. Switzerland
3. Norway
4. Netherlands
5. Sweden
6. Germany
7. Denmark
8. Austria
9. Luxembourg
10. Canada

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/cpop/dbasse_080393#tuberculosis
Under Mortality Rates: How the U.S. Compares
Under Tuberculosis
Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany all have higher mortality rates due to Tuberculosis than the United States.
Under Oral Conditions
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark all have higher mortality rates due to Oral Conditions than the United States.
Under Osteoarthritis
Canada, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, and Switzerland all have higher mortality rates due to Osteoarthritis than the United States.
Under Meningitis
Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark all have higher mortality rates due to Meningitis than the United States.
Under Malaria
Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, and Norway all have higher mortality rates due to Malaria than the United States.
Under Deaths from Malignant Neoplasms
Canada, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark all have higher mortality rates due to Malignant Neoplasms than the United States.
Under Upper Respiratory Infections
Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands all have higher mortality rates due to upper respiratory infections than the United States.
Under Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)
Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have higher mortality rates due to Rheumatoid Arthritis than the United States.
Under Iron deficiency anemia
Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark all have higher mortality rates due to iron deficiency anemia than the United States.
Under Other Unintentional Injuries
Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have higher mortality rates due to other unintentional injuries than the United States.

The point being made here is that the United States, without single-payer or universal health care coverage provides better health care in these areas than the countries shown here that do have single-payer or universal health care! Why?
Again, why? How is it that United States without single payer or universal health care is better than anyone, anywhere in the world with single-payer or universal health care, in anything?

According to the U.S. State Departiment, 907,166 Non Immigrant Visas were issued in March of this year. This number includes the number of medical visas issued.I have not had any success thus far in trying to find just the number of medical visas issued per year in the United States. But I can tell you it is not just people from Canada coming here with medical visas. And just recently where did the parents of Charlie Gard want to take their baby for treatment? They wanted to bring the baby here,
from the UK.


The point is that saying we have the best health care system in the world, is not supportable by the evidence.
Again, Look at this thread, or in any other discussion at what I said, not what you want to interpret. I did not say we have the best health care system in the world.
I did say, considering the out of reach costs for s single payer health care system [As proven in California and Vermont] that perhaps there are more than two solutions here (our health care or single-payer / universal health care)
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby wobbly » August 4th, 2017, 12:38 pm

Michaels wrote: How is it that in this country we have better care, success, and quicker access for some medical issues and we do not have single-payer health care?


The best health care system in the world is of little use if you don't have access to it. We don't have universal access to health care, a person in this country has no guarantee to medical treatment. I can't walk into a doctors office or hospital and demand treatment.
“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.”
― Richard Dawkins

Tea Party: Brewing Extremism Since 2010.
wobbly
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 12:49 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 4th, 2017, 3:57 pm

wobbly wrote:
Michaels wrote: How is it that in this country we have better care, success, and quicker access for some medical issues and we do not have single-payer health care?


The best health care system in the world is of little use if you don't have access to it. Agreed.
Obamacare was supposed to add medical insurance for 40 million people who did not have it and with everything that it supposedly offered, there were many people who could not afford that, and many who had it could not afford to go to a doctor.
Now we have single-payer/universal care in countries and their people (some of them, sometime) are coming over here for care. So they have the access and their own care in those countries but not the care there that they need so they apply to come here. Do you know what the requirements are to be granted a medical visa to come here for treatment? Charlie Gard's parents raised over 1 million dollars to come here. And they were not allowed to come here due to some regulation in the UK. And Charlie Gard had no guarantee to medical treatment either.
We don't have universal access to health care, a person in this country has no guarantee to medical treatment. I can't walk into a doctors office or hospital and demand treatment.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 4th, 2017, 4:48 pm

I do not want to keep rehashing this: but but 400 billion dollars is not that out of line with what you expect California to spend given its almost 40 million people and the ten thousand per person spent on American health care according to the most recent studies. Do the math.

The CEO of Aetna Insurance said that there is not a guarantee that single payer would reduce costs in Vermont, California and another state where it is being considered. That is all well and good, but remember this guy is talking in his own self- interest. Like President Trump, trying to kill subsides that keep insurers in Red State markets by guaranteeing them against loss for the expressed purpose of killing Obamacare. This part of the Obamacare make sure that insurance companies do not lose money when they step up to help. They are not guaranteed a profit, but they are protected against a loss which would make them good corporate citizens

Also your list included three or four countries we did better than. There are about 35 countries in the OECD and 16 in the list I gave you. So naturally on some things we are going to be better than somebody. We did not finish last in everything! That would be one sorry assed health care system if we did, and we are not that bad. So yeah we provide health care better in these areas than the bottom countries who also out perform us generally in many more areas. Notice that no where on that list was France even mentioned once

The article I gave you a few posts back about the "Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians' use of health Care in the United States" said that about .5% of Canadians on the border received health care in the previous year in the United States and most were incidental, not planned. And that Canadians prefer their health care system by a margin of 86.2%. I seriously doubt if the United States is one of the leading medical tourist destinations in the world. but we could explore it
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 4th, 2017, 5:09 pm

Leftyg, you dont have to keep rehashing the 400 billion cost for California single payer. You keep saying that that amount is what you expect California to spend but whether that is what we would expect does not translate to being acceptable, California did the math, and rejected the cost of single payer health care. - Do the reading.

The Ceo of Aetna Insurance is only one person, one vote. He did not cause California to reject single-payer health care.
He has his own self interests, and so do you.

Look I have already spent more time on this than I wanted to. The state department lists the number of visas that they issue each month. Maybe you could find out how many medical visas the U.S. issues. That would be an interesting find, and it would add to an honest discussion of this topic.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 4th, 2017, 5:16 pm

Leftyg, you dont have to keep rehashing the 400 billion cost for California single payer. You keep saying that that amount is what you expect California to spend but whether that is what we would expect does not translate to being acceptable, California did the math, and rejected the cost of single payer health care. - Do the reading.
No do the math 40 million times ten thousand is 400 billion. I don't care what an article says. It is called thinking!

Look I have already spent more time on this than I wanted to. The state department lists the number of visas that they issue each month. Maybe you could find out how many medical visas the U.S. issues. That would be an interesting find, and it would add to an honest discussion of this topic.
You have spent alot of time, but you have not demonstrated you point. I will look into medical tourism. but the idea that you and a few right wing writers know more than Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman is stunning. Got to go. I will get back to this.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 5th, 2017, 1:18 pm

The only point is that California, Vermont, and Colorado rejected single payer. Tell California, Vermont, and Colorado about Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman. Maybe they don't know about them or what they had to say about single payer. Maybe, if you send send them all the copies you have of their articles on the subject along with copies of your posts on the subject they will rush right back to the voters and get single-payer back on the ballot, and this time they will have no problem passing this issue. I am sure that is all it would take.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby wobbly » August 5th, 2017, 1:57 pm

Michaels wrote : The only point is that California, Vermont, and Colorado rejected single payer.


You can't always count on people to make an informed decision. Look at all the people who wanted to get rid of Obama Care, but didn't want to lose their ACA insurance. Take away the ACA and many people in states like Kentucky will be without coverage. Some people who voted for Trump are seeing their spouse's deported, never thinking that it would affect them. Many people don't have any idea regarding the cost of employer insurance, and how it impacts wages. Also the cost of employer provided insurance is passed down to the consumer.

FAQ - How Much Does it Cost to Provide Health Insurance to Employees?
https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/faq-h ... -employees
“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.”
― Richard Dawkins

Tea Party: Brewing Extremism Since 2010.
wobbly
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 12:49 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 5th, 2017, 7:29 pm

I find it stunning that conservatives do not blink an eye about paying vast sums to an insurance company, but scream bloody murder when the government does it for less. One of the many advantages of single payer is that it allows people to quit their jobs and look for better jobs. It also allows small business to compete for better labor with larger corporations
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 6th, 2017, 8:21 pm

leftyg wrote:I find it stunning that conservatives do not blink an eye about paying vast sums to an insurance company, I do not know who you have been talking to but the people i know are not very happy about spending a lot on any insurance, especially when they do not use it a lot and have very little control over it except to go somewhere else. Have you seen the commercials on car insurance?but scream bloody murder when the government does it for less. The "people" don't see the government doing anything "for less". One of the many advantages of single payer is that it allows people to quit their jobs and look for better jobs. Unless a person lost their job or in the case of ACA lost hours to their job, people are not quitting their jobs to look for one. They may quit their jobs if they do not provide notice once they find a new job. If health care insurance continues to cover you after losing a job, that would be an advantage instead of spending a second mortgage on COBRA. Obama care forced many people to look for more work because employers cut their hours. And then liberals like you started saying that was some kind of advantage because it allowed them to look for better jobs. People always keep an eye for the possibility of getting better work and or better pay. That did not start with Obamacare. It also allows small business to compete for better labor with larger corporations
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 6th, 2017, 8:32 pm

wobbly wrote:
Michaels wrote : The only point is that California, Vermont, and Colorado rejected single payer.


You can't always count on people to make an informed decision. Look at all the people who wanted to get rid of Obama Care, but didn't want to lose their ACA insurance. Take away the ACA and many people in states like Kentucky will be without coverage. Some people who voted for Trump are seeing their spouse's deported, never thinking that it would affect them. Many people don't have any idea regarding the cost of employer insurance, and how it impacts wages. Also the cost of employer provided insurance is passed down to the consumer.

FAQ - How Much Does it Cost to Provide Health Insurance to Employees?
https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/faq-h ... -employees


Your right Wobbly, you can't always count on people to make an informed decision. As far as Obamacare has been going, many people were not allowed information regarding how strong the company was before choosing their provider during the sign up periods. Many providers were on their way out the door and were looking to maintain any amount of income that they could for as long as they could, much like the liberal creed: "Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can." Besides the lack of informed decisions, Obamacare has been imploding on its own and people in many states, and not just Kentucky lost their Obamacare insurance and were forced to look for another provider from the Obamacare market exchanges.
But I believe that you are right about many people not knowing the true costs behind insurance.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 6th, 2017, 11:13 pm

Your right Wobbly, you can't always count on people to make an informed decision. As far as Obamacare has been going, many people were not allowed information regarding how strong the company was before choosing their provider during the sign up periods. Many providers were on their way out the door and were looking to maintain any amount of income that they could for as long as they could,
I believe that most of the failed exchanges were in Red States where right wing governors wanted the ACA to fail. Companies were being made whole by subsidies that permitted them to continue serving the people. They had a guarantee against losing money but no guarantee of making it. Stopping the subsidies would be morally wrong as well as stupid because as markets stabilize they will become viable. If the ACA fails, it is on Trump and he should be charged with dereliction of duty. There i sno trick to making something fail if you do not fund it.

Then for good measure you throw in the straw man^
much like the liberal creed: "Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can." Besides the lack of informed decisions, Obamacare has been imploding on its own and people in many states, and not just Kentucky lost their Obamacare insurance and were forced to look for another provider from the Obamacare market exchanges.
That is bullshit. Most people pay nothing extra other than those who are not eligible for subsidies and do not have insurance; they pay what they must to get care, and it does not break them. The rich pay yes because they should. But we have the lowest taxes of any country in the world where a person would want to live, but there are bills waiting to be paid if we do nothing. "If" we had paid just 30% tax as a percentage of GDP over the last 30 years, we probably would have no national debt, or if not none, very little, And 30% would be a full three percent less than the average of the Organization of Economic Opportunity, Cooperation and Development (OECD)
But I believe that you are right about many people not knowing the true costs behind insurance.
But do you know the cost of people not having insurance? The cost of a human life? I believe all your selfish fears on health care and immigration would be assuaged if you just had the courage to do what is morally right and not what benefits the few at the top.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 7th, 2017, 12:54 am

No BS from me. Obamacare's passage, and forthcoming certain failure is all on the Democrats. It was Obama who placed limits on the subsidies. It is not a moral duty for anybody else to work to continue this boondoggle. The Democrats who agree that Obamacare has problems are offering to fix the problems as long as they can continue to call it Obamacare, and if they can not do that, any changes, and any alternatives offered to the public will be branded by the democrats as extreme or not doing enough.

Do you know the cost of a human life? Your party supports abortion. If you had the courage to do what is morally right you would not defend abortion. And you would not defend the party, your party, that supports and defends abortion.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 7th, 2017, 10:42 am

No BS from me. Obamacare's passage, and forthcoming certain failure is all on the Democrats. It was Obama who placed limits on the subsidies. It is not a moral duty for anybody else to work to continue this boondoggle. The Democrats who agree that Obamacare has problems are offering to fix the problems as long as they can continue to call it Obamacare, and if they can not do that, any changes, and any alternatives offered to the public will be branded by the democrats as extreme or not doing enough.
Yes BS on you. There is no failure when millions get health care, only when it is taken away. My theory is that Obamacare might fail, and then the country will blame Republicans. Look you are so interested in pleasing the rich, you have forgotten what the purpose of having a country is. Obamacare will have to be fixed, but there can be no tax cuts on the rich. Sorry. The only people hurt by Obamacare are the rich and to a very small extent the "immortals," well off young people who think that they can live without insurance.

Do you know the cost of a human life? Your party supports abortion. If you had the courage to do what is morally right you would not defend abortion. And you would not defend the party, your party, that supports and defends abortion.
Look I do not defend abortion; I tolerate it. Your party stops caring about life when the baby is born. And the Repubs don't care about prenatal care or any of that. Your party is against the interests of born human beings if they are not rich and white.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 7th, 2017, 9:26 pm

leftyg wrote:
No BS from me. Obamacare's passage, and forthcoming certain failure is all on the Democrats. It was Obama who placed limits on the subsidies. It is not a moral duty for anybody else to work to continue this boondoggle. The Democrats who agree that Obamacare has problems are offering to fix the problems as long as they can continue to call it Obamacare, and if they can not do that, any changes, and any alternatives offered to the public will be branded by the democrats as extreme or not doing enough.
Yes BS on you. There is no failure when millions get health care, only when it is taken away. So when the providers who agreed to provide Obamacare only as long as they were collecting subsidies decide not to provide coverage anymore, and causing many to lose their coverage and forcing them to search for another provider after the sign up period, (all under President Obama); that would be considered a failure by you. Well it happened more than once under President Obama. Obamacare failed millions. My theory is that Obamacare might fail Uh Leftyg, Obamacare did fail. Obamacare went past the "might fail" a while ago., and then the country will blame Republicans. This country will never I repeat NEVER blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare. Look you are so interested in pleasing the rich, Another lame and baseless allegation. Would you try to demonstrate how my life is so interested in pleasing the rich. You can't.you have forgotten what the purpose of having a country is. I am pretty sure that what I believe the purpose of our country is for is not what you think. Obamacare will have to be fixed,No Obamacare does not "have to be fixed." It needs to be replaced. You would be fine with replacing it with single-payer or universal health care, but I do not see that happening any time soon. but there can be no tax cuts on the rich.I don't know how health care will be funded, but if that means more taxes on everybody, then that is what will happen. I am not rich Leftyg. I am quite certain that you have made more money than I have over your lifetime. But unlike you and the rest of the Left, I am not in favor of taking something away from anyone for my own sake. I do not "covet" my neighbor's goods. Sorry? you? The only people hurt by Obamacare are the very people it said it would help, and the people who couldn't afford it and payed the fine for not buying it, and the people who bought it and couldn't use it because the deductables were so high. And outside of healthcare, how many people became even more jaded and cynical about politics because of the lie of Obamacare.

Do you know the cost of a human life? Your party supports abortion. If you had the courage to do what is morally right you would not defend abortion. And you would not defend the party, your party, that supports and defends abortion.
Look I do not defend abortion; I tolerate it. Your party stops caring about life when the baby is born.And how does my party stop caring about life when the baby is born? My party wants to provide the very best for the child and everyone else. My party believes is school choice. Your party does not. My party believes in the individual, believes in the pursuit of excellance, and in rewarding achievement. Your party paints individual achievement as luck, like a lottery winner, and assigns achievement to anything but the individual. My party believes in supporting the individual in their choice of vocation. Your party assigns negative terms to anyone and everyone outside of your party. Republicans care about providing the best care to all people, and that includes babies in the womb. It was the Republicans who worked for the passage of legislation to ensure that Abortion Clinics and their hired butchers would have access to hospitals. Abortions are not provided to women of only one color.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 7th, 2017, 10:03 pm

All your palaver aside, Obamacare stands because in the seven years the GOP has opposed it, they have done nothing to fix it or replace it. Only about 5% of the people in New York are now uninsured. All we need to do to insure health care continues is to protect participating insurance companies from operating losses. Trump wants to end these subsidies.

Michaels, health care in other countries is not designed to make a profit. If we have to figure out a way we can here, then we will. But the stunning half-truths that Obamacare is going up 42% or 46% is only true of people in the individual market, not the millions getting subsidies. I have looked at the Kaiser charts, and increases are only happening to people with very high incomes. When you hear these horror stories, it is normally from a person who makes a six figure income having to pay 800 dollars instead of 400 dollars.

But conservative talkers never tell the whole truth; they tell a half truth at best. They never give the income of the person which is important information. We know that for years the costs of insurance have actually gone up more slowly than they had before Obamacare passed. Now much of that, according to Republicans in Congress was because of the extremely low inflation from about 2010 until the present.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby Michaels153 » August 11th, 2017, 9:47 pm

Obamacare still stands because the GOP has not replaced it...yet.
You said:
All we need to do to insure health care continues is to protect participating insurance companies from operating losses. Trump wants to end these subsidies.

\
In my previous thread: Worse than a complete waste of money. I quoted the Kaiser Foundation, a source you trusted and have also quoted from that Obamacare was not affordable
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/latest-obamacare-flop-enrollment-will-be-way-below-plan/
Kaiser does finally get around to the nut of the problem with ObamaCare: affordability.

Even though the official name of the law is the “Affordable Care Act,” Kaiser says that “the overwhelming reason why people who are uninsured say they are uncovered is cost.” In fact, most of the uninsured said they tried to get a plan but found it too expensive.

Obamacare was not affordable to the majority with its mandates and its subsidies, especially the CSR back end subsidy that was scheduled to end at the conclusion of 2016.

See ->The Plain Dealer 04/08/2016,Business Section; page A8 INSURERS "UnitedHealth exiting two state markets"
Also see -> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/287906-panic-prompted-obamacare-lawlessness
Panic prompted Obamacare Lawlessness By Doug Badger
A report issued last week jointly by the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees explores how the administration came to unlawfully funnel $7 billion in unappropriated money to insurers through a single ObamaCare program.
The program — known as cost-sharing reduction (CSR) — requires insurers to reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket spending for certain low-income people who signed up for coverage through health insurance exchanges. In turn, the statute authorized the administration to seek an appropriation from Congress to reimburse insurers for the cost of providing these coverage enhancements.

Now pay attention.
The congressional report chronicles how the administration determined as early as 2010 that it needed an appropriation to make CSR payments to insurers. In April 2013, the president submitted a budget to Congress formally requesting the appropriation.

But in July, the Senate Appropriations Committee, then controlled by Democrats, expressly denied the president's request. Sometime after Congress refused to fund the program, the administration contrived the theory that it could spend money without an appropriation.

So it was the Democrats who originally did not want to appropriate President Obama's CSR payments. Not President Trump.
Without legal appropriation of funds from Congress, then President Obama decided to bypass Congress in the following manner:
Senior officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) drafted a legal memorandum during late 2013 declaring that the government could make billions in CSR payments to the insurance industry without congressional approval. The administration began making the unlawful payments in January 2014.

If it is not clear to you or others that these were unlawful payments even though the OMB drafted a legal memorandum declaring otherwise this should clear that up:
The New York Times has acknowledged that if the administration were permitted to continue spending unappropriated money, "it could have major — some might say huge — consequences for our constitutional democracy."
At least one federal judge agrees. In a lawsuit filed by the House of Representatives, Federal District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in May ruled that the CSR payments were unlawful.

President Obama knew back in 2010 that his ACA was not sustainable without propping up the insurance companies from the expected losses. but even with his CSR subsidies and his mandates Insurance companies continued to lose money and continued to drop out of the program.

The Subsidies were not effective in keeping the insurance companies operating so that they could continue offering Obamacare, But you want to continue to offer them? The subsidies were only an artificial prop to make Obamacare look affordable when it wasn't affordable.
And now you want to move on to single-payer.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/08/11/msnbcs-morning-joe-yeah-there-are-not-enough-taxes-to-subsidize-this-left-wing-n2366383
MSNBC's Morning Joe: Yeah, There Are Not Enough Taxes To Subsidize This Left Wing Venture posted 8/11/17.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and the progressive Left want to have single-payer, or Medicare for All, ...MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough made the point that there is no way to fund this left wing venture though more taxes on the rich on Tuesday:There are not enough taxes to be levied against the top 1 percent or the top 10 percent that would fund ‘Medicare for All. Furthermore, there aren’t enough taxes out there to raise, to actually keep Medicare going over the next 20-25 years. We are in a deep hole of debt. And just saying ‘hey, let’s just raise taxes more,’ the numbers don’t add up. They just don’t add up. Ask the CBO. Ask, you can ask any debt committee.”

But hey, Warren Buffet touts single payer, and that is all that counts.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » August 12th, 2017, 1:32 am

Michaels, you are going to have to make your argument more clearly. I could not tell when I was talking and when an article you were using was talking. clean it up please. I will say this, there is enough money to tax for single payer. We have the highest health care costs in the world. And what Joe Scarbourough or anybody else says matters little when the evidence is there that it could be paid for because some of us can count. We have a 20 trillion dollar economy, and we pay over three trillion for health care. Wobbly has already showed that health care costs rise less in the public sector than in the private. And the abundant evidence from around the world suggests strongly that traditional health insurance in America costs more. This is why Warren Buffet believes that because it is what the best evidence suggests.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Warren Buffet touts single payer

Postby leftyg » March 13th, 2018, 12:56 pm

wobbly wrote:
Scorpion wrote:Single payer is not the panacea you make it out to be.


Having been covered by both private (employer) provided group health insurance and public health insurance (Medicare) I can say that the public Medicare coverage is as good if not better than the private coverage I had. Costs and coverage are more stable with medicare than with the private group coverage. I don't have to worry about going out of network because I am covered with any Dr./ hospital who accepts Medicare. Administrative Costs are considerably lower with the Medicare vs private insurance. Public plans are nonprofit and don't have to answer to stock holders regarding return on investment. Public plans are able to negotiate lower costs and better coverage than private plans. Single payer insurance may not be a panacea, but it is better and more cost effective than private health insurance.

Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $18,142 this year, up 3 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $5,277 towards the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Education Trust 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey. http://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/ ... ts-survey/

Public vs. Private Health Insurance on Controlling Spending http://www.kff.org/health-costs/perspec ... g-spending
/
Image
leftyg
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

cron