Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Here's your socialized medicine.

    Share

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:21 pm

    BtW, with the possible exception of Blondy, doubt this board can discuss healthcare in an adult like manner.  The problem is, the most logical way to fund a National plan would be a head tax on employers.  That would have tweedle dee and tweedle dum giggling for a week
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7601
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by alohafri on Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:20 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:So does that mean you no longer consider the death of baby Alfie to be a symbol of the very real limits of socialized medicine?  Or do you still stand by the opinion you expressed that open this thread?  Or have you reached some new conclusion?

    And don’t forget to answer in a polite adult like manner.  It would really make me sad if Al in Cal turned out to be correct about you

    I stand by my opinion that this is a limitation on socialized medicine. These parents were forbidden by the government to go to another country to seek treatment for their child when their own government said that they were done treating him. That is one of the things that needs to be addressed.


    I got screwed by Obamacare as we were forced to make changes in the health insurance that I had that worked very well for me. Other people got helped. I have yet to see the benefits promised by President Trump by his "changing" (for lack of a better term) of Obamacare. Other people got screwed. 


    The government needs to somehow put politics aside and come up with a system that is palatable for everyone involved. 


    I couldn't care less what Al in Cal thinks of me. He is a miserable old man who I hope finds some kind of happiness before he goes to the great beyond.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:21 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:BtW, with the possible exception of Blondy, doubt this board can discuss healthcare in an adult like manner.  The problem is, the most logical way to fund a National plan would be a head tax on employers.  That would have tweedle dee and tweedle dum giggling for a week

    Oh, definitely.  You're far too smart, adultlike and sophisticated for we uneducated folk.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue May 01, 2018 7:28 am

    Having read a bit more on the topic, I don't view this incident as really being any kind of indictment on universal care. The baby was grievously brain damaged. Several doctors decided that extending the baby's life would be cruel and unfair to him. Doesn't sound like their opinion was related to money, although I accept that perhaps it was. I am not seeing this as a universal care issue so much as a rights issue. Did the govt have a right to advocate for the child in a way that superceded the rights of the parents? I don't know. Good question that is good debate fodder, but it's the Heritage Foundation that is pushing this story as being evidence of how bad universal care is, while many others are suggesting there is no relationship between the two.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7601
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by alohafri on Tue May 01, 2018 7:38 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:Having read a bit more on the topic, I don't view this incident as really being any kind of indictment on universal care.  The baby was grievously brain damaged.  Several doctors decided that extending the baby's life would be cruel and unfair to him.  Doesn't sound like their opinion was related to money, although I accept that perhaps it was.  I am not seeing this as a universal care issue so much as a rights issue.  Did the govt have a right to advocate for the child in a way that superceded the rights of the parents?  I don't know. Good question that is good debate fodder, but it's the Heritage Foundation that is pushing this story as being evidence of how bad universal care is, while many others are suggesting there is no relationship between the two.

    I pay no attention to the Heritage Foundation. It is being "pushed" (to use your term) in Catholic media as a life issue, not as a tax issue, not even as "evidence of how bad universal care is" but as a life issue that needs to be addressed. (Kark would refer to my headline as "fake news.")
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue May 01, 2018 8:36 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:Having read a bit more on the topic, I don't view this incident as really being any kind of indictment on universal care.  The baby was grievously brain damaged.  Several doctors decided that extending the baby's life would be cruel and unfair to him.  Doesn't sound like their opinion was related to money, although I accept that perhaps it was.  I am not seeing this as a universal care issue so much as a rights issue.  Did the govt have a right to advocate for the child in a way that superceded the rights of the parents?  I don't know. Good question that is good debate fodder, but it's the Heritage Foundation that is pushing this story as being evidence of how bad universal care is, while many others are suggesting there is no relationship between the two.

    I pay no attention to the Heritage Foundation. It is being "pushed" (to use your term) in Catholic media as a life issue, not as a tax issue, not even as "evidence of how bad universal care is" but as a life issue that needs to be addressed. (Kark would refer to my headline as "fake news.")


    I don't wish to push a notion that you're some kind of robotic byproduct of the pushing of news by Heritage, but they have the kind of influence that can push a story from the backburner into the mainstream, and the power to build a narrative without our necessarily realizing it.  I'd say it really IS a life issue and an important story about rights that ought to be discussed.  Reminds me of a few we've seen and heard in the past.  I can't remember the name of the brain-dead lady that eventually died during the Bush administration where there was a lot of hair pulling about whether it was ok to pull the plug on her.

    My only point here is that I'm not getting the sense that this is so much a socialized meds issue as it is a rights issue.  If it's socialized meds at play, I can see England pulling the plug for financial reasons, but then why would they care if the parents want to take the baby to Italy?  It was no longer a financial issue.  The English gov't was taking the position that it wasn't in the best interests of the child to extend life...that it would somehow be cruel and unnecessary to the baby.  Seems to me like they were trying to advocate for his interests, unless there's some underlying, unspoken-about financial issue at play.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Tue May 01, 2018 9:02 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:So does that mean you no longer consider the death of baby Alfie to be a symbol of the very real limits of socialized medicine?  Or do you still stand by the opinion you expressed that open this thread?  Or have you reached some new conclusion?

    And don’t forget to answer in a polite adult like manner.  It would really make me sad if Al in Cal turned out to be correct about you

    I stand by my opinion that this is a limitation on socialized medicine. These parents were forbidden by the government to go to another country to seek treatment for their child when their own government said that they were done treating him. That is one of the things that needs to be addressed.


    I got screwed by Obamacare as we were forced to make changes in the health insurance that I had that worked very well for me. Other people got helped. I have yet to see the benefits promised by President Trump by his "changing" (for lack of a better term) of Obamacare. Other people got screwed. 


    The government needs to somehow put politics aside and come up with a system that is palatable for everyone involved. 


    I couldn't care less what Al in Cal thinks of me. He is a miserable old man who I hope finds some kind of happiness before he goes to the great beyond.


    WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!!


    SOMEBODY ADMITTING THEY ACTUALLY GOT SCREWED BY OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!


    ROBZ TOLD ME THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE


    JUST WAIT FOR SINGLE PAYER WHEN EVERY PLAN GETS CANCELLED AND WE ALL RECEIVE THE EXACT SAME COVERAGE


    WHAT YOUR BUDDY ROBZ WON'T TELL YOU IS THAT ANY SINGLE PAYER PLAN WILL MOST LIKELY BE RAN BY THE IRS


    BUT KEEP ON PRETENDING HE'S SOME KIND OF EXPERT AND THE KARK KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY ANALZED THE ISSUED INSTEAD MAKING CHILDISH PROCLAMATIONS ABOUT HOW SOMETHING MOST BE DONE OR THAT POLITICS MUST BE PUT ASIDE OR IT WORKS IN CANADA


    3 TRILLION DOLLARS, 300 MILLION PEOPLE, 10k A PIECE.  THERE IS YOUR MATH PROBLEM TEACH.  AND YES, OPENING THE TEXTBOOK WILL BE REQUIRED


    STILL WAITING FOR YOU AND YOUR BUDDY TO OFFER ANYTHING INTELLIGENT REGARDING A SOLUTION
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue May 01, 2018 9:21 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    SOMEBODY ADMITTING THEY ACTUALLY GOT SCREWED BY OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!


    ROBZ TOLD ME THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE

    Really?  Many have had their situations improved by ACA.  Several have had their situations worsened.  Many have remained in similar fashion (that would be my family).  Do you honestly think that I believe nobody has had their life worsened by ACA?  Maybe when I joke about you needing reading comprehension, I shouldn't just be joking.


    JUST WAIT FOR SINGLE PAYER WHEN EVERY PLAN GETS CANCELLED AND WE ALL RECEIVE THE EXACT SAME COVERAGE

    Not sure every plan will be canceled so much as they'll become generally unnecessary.  More than likely, upper tier insurance coverage would continue to exist (as it does in Canada) whereby folks with good benefits would have coverage that covers either their copays or deductibles (if any exist) under a national care plan, or would afford them better choice of doctors, etc.  


    WHAT YOUR BUDDY ROBZ WON'T TELL YOU IS THAT ANY SINGLE PAYER PLAN WILL MOST LIKELY BE RAN BY THE IRS

    I suppose that's possible.  


    BUT KEEP ON PRETENDING HE'S SOME KIND OF EXPERT AND THE KARK KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY ANALZED THE ISSUED INSTEAD MAKING CHILDISH PROCLAMATIONS ABOUT HOW SOMETHING MOST BE DONE OR THAT POLITICS MUST BE PUT ASIDE OR IT WORKS IN CANADA

    I'm going to go out on a really far limb and just state in plain English right now that I'd not some kind of expert....at least on healthcare.  


    3 TRILLION DOLLARS, 300 MILLION PEOPLE, 10k A PIECE.  THERE IS YOUR MATH PROBLEM TEACH.  AND YES, OPENING THE TEXTBOOK WILL BE REQUIRED


    STILL WAITING FOR YOU AND YOUR BUDDY TO OFFER ANYTHING INTELLIGENT REGARDING A SOLUTION

    I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered.  How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7601
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by alohafri on Tue May 01, 2018 9:56 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:


    STILL WAITING FOR YOU AND YOUR BUDDY TO OFFER ANYTHING INTELLIGENT REGARDING A SOLUTION

    I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered.  How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  

    I can't speak for Rob, but that's above my pay grade. Unlike some people on this board, I know my limitations. Just because I'm not an expert on things like health care, sabermetrics, launch angle, guns, etc. doesn't mean that I can't make commentary on issues of such. But, of course, you are a stable genius who knows all. Why aren't you running the country again?

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Tue May 01, 2018 10:58 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:


    STILL WAITING FOR YOU AND YOUR BUDDY TO OFFER ANYTHING INTELLIGENT REGARDING A SOLUTION

    I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered.  How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  

    I can't speak for Rob, but that's above my pay grade. Unlike some people on this board, I know my limitations. Just because I'm not an expert on things like health care, sabermetrics, launch angle, guns, etc. doesn't mean that I can't make commentary on issues of such. But, of course, you are a stable genius who knows all. Why aren't you running the country again?


    I'm not the genius that spend a decade inventing his own math instead of simply opening a textbook.  Has anybody else chastize Roger for not simply opening a textbook or tell roger how it is completely unreasonable it is for us to believe his new math instead of doing it the proper way?  One is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts.


    BTW, Kudos to RobZ for giving an honest thoughtful answer where he tried to make sense.  Not some smart ass remark because he's afraid to state his real position.  From past comments, it is very clear that AL Jr's position is "fix it but keep your hands off my stuff".  wah wah wah


    Last edited by Deplorable Mark on Tue May 01, 2018 11:21 am; edited 1 time in total

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Tue May 01, 2018 11:17 am

    I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered. 


    The KARK humbly disagrees.  It is my opinion that docs and other healthcare professionals would need to become government employees.  Reason, cut out the middle man.  Dr Fed only has to deal with his patients.  He doesn't need an admin staff to make sure all the bills are collected and paid.  If we are going to centalize, may as well go all the way.  Certainly makes things simpler.  Of course, I may have missed something, so i reserve my right to change my opinion


     How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) 


    And this makes perfect sense since most of us get coverage via our employer.  As a rough guess, if healthcare is 1/6 the economy, I guess that 1/2 of that is paid by employers.  But then that is a guess.  Not sure what the Labor Bureau reports.


    and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  


    Not sure I completely follow.  Lets see, single payer, the employers are just relieved of a very large benefits expense.  However, it would be replace by a new tax.  In a perfect world, the tax would be equal to what the old benefits cost would be.  Therefore, the employer and employee would stay the same.  In the real world, it won't be that simple.  Any change will create winners and losers.


    If the KARK is anywhere close to his 50% estimate of who currently pays, I don't think its possible to dump this all on corporate America.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7601
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by alohafri on Tue May 01, 2018 2:04 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:


    STILL WAITING FOR YOU AND YOUR BUDDY TO OFFER ANYTHING INTELLIGENT REGARDING A SOLUTION

    I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered.  How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  

    I can't speak for Rob, but that's above my pay grade. Unlike some people on this board, I know my limitations. Just because I'm not an expert on things like health care, sabermetrics, launch angle, guns, etc. doesn't mean that I can't make commentary on issues of such. But, of course, you are a stable genius who knows all. Why aren't you running the country again?


    I'm not the genius that spend a decade inventing his own math instead of simply opening a textbook.  Has anybody else chastize Roger for not simply opening a textbook or tell roger how it is completely unreasonable it is for us to believe his new math instead of doing it the proper way?  One is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts.


    BTW, Kudos to RobZ for giving an honest thoughtful answer where he tried to make sense.  Not some smart ass remark because he's afraid to state his real position.  From past comments, it is very clear that AL Jr's position is "fix it but keep your hands off my stuff".  wah wah wah

    Wah wah wah! Kark gets butthurt again because people don't share his opinion. Wah wah wah!


    You go ahead and take your Health Savings Account with no other insurance and then come back and tell us how that works out for you when, God forbid, someone in your family gets seriously ill and you don't have enough money to cover it.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue May 01, 2018 2:10 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered. 
    The KARK humbly disagrees.  It is my opinion that docs and other healthcare professionals would need to become government employees.  Reason, cut out the middle man.  Dr Fed only has to deal with his patients.  He doesn't need an admin staff to make sure all the bills are collected and paid.  If we are going to centalize, may as well go all the way.  Certainly makes things simpler.  Of course, I may have missed something, so i reserve my right to change my opinion

    I'm not quite sure how you expect to convince however many thousands or millions of docs to give up their private practice and to become employees of the US.  You are suggesting the England method.  I'm suggesting the Canada method.  Not sure there's a right or a wrong way, but if you go Canada-style, you can do it without as much bureaucracy by just allowing all existing med practices to continue as they have been running for years, but they'd be billing the G instead of Aetna or Blue Cross.  Additionally, in making all docs employees of the US, you'll have boutique docs making millions per year having to take a huge pay cut and low budget docs getting a nice raise.  I'm not sure exactly how you pull this off.  I'll bet it would be challenged in the courts.  Additionally, leaving docs as private practice allows them to work as much or as little as they wish in order to earn as much or little as suits them.


     How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) 

    And this makes perfect sense since most of us get coverage via our employer.  As a rough guess, if healthcare is 1/6 the economy, I guess that 1/2 of that is paid by employers.  But then that is a guess.  Not sure what the Labor Bureau reports.

    1/2 is likely a safe estimate.  Seeing as universal care nations are closer to 10-14% of GDP, I suspect we can drop back from 1/6 of our economy to closer to 1/7th, hypothetically, by cutting out the insurance companies.


    and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  
    Not sure I completely follow.  Lets see, single payer, the employers are just relieved of a very large benefits expense.  However, it would be replace by a new tax.  In a perfect world, the tax would be equal to what the old benefits cost would be.  Therefore, the employer and employee would stay the same.  In the real world, it won't be that simple.  Any change will create winners and losers.

    There will always be winners and losers, but how do you manage doing this through employers when so many of them don't provide healthcare coverage benefits?  You guys have your dry cleaner.  Would you be exempted for being a smallish company?  Always struck me as odd that companies are expected to carry this expense, and it ultimately just becomes a part of what the company is expected to pay to the employee as income expense.  Do you think that if a company no longer had to pay this that employees would push their pay higher through negotiation?  I suspect that they would.  There'd be a lull, though, during which the employer is keeping more, and the employee is paying a higher tax.  There'd suddenly be this 10-12% line item tax on our paycheck against our income, so you'd figure that the people would go to their employers and basically insist on receiving this, or demanding this.  Could the G get involved and mandate this be paid out to the employee in years one and two, and assume that after it's no longer mandated, the dust would clear in a manner that settles into making those pay increases permanent for most people?  That's possibly naive on my part, since I don't generally trust large corporations with shareholders beholden to their share price.  

    I think that for now, I'm inclined to want to see this be a base, line item tax that can be adjusted annually, and have it be decoupled either entirely from employers, or see it phased out of employers responsibility.  



    If the KARK is anywhere close to his 50% estimate of who currently pays, I don't think its possible to dump this all on corporate America.
    avatar
    Blondy28
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1592
    Join date : 2009-04-11

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Blondy28 on Tue May 01, 2018 5:16 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:Really?  That's socialized medicine, and not one particularly strange and isolated situation?  Considering the thousands or millions of lives socialized medicine has saved or improved, and the millions it's saved from bankruptcy, I'd not let a single situation such as this define "socialized medicine" any more than I'd let a person dying of cancer who can't afford treatment in the US as defining our current, American version of healthcare.  It's might easy for guys like you or me to be critical.  We have the absolute best coverage in the world (because of our jobs) and tend to view all else as a threat to our wonderful coverage and care.   Maybe it is.  Maybe it isn't.  I view it, instead, as sharing our coverage and care with the rest of the country, so that we're not the only people fortunate enough to enjoy it.

    Yeah, our system is SO great that I can't afford any healthcare.  I see a specialist at Loyola Medical Center, and under our new healthcare plan, I can't afford anything.  I'm able to see her, but every diagnostic test or treatment she suggests is something I can't do.  I told her if it's not a prescription in the $50 range, I can't do it.  So I'm going without medical care for this debilitating condition.  And my cancer follow-up care?  Nope...no can do.  Had to cancel my annual check-up, which includes the infusion that I get because I have osteoporosis in my hips.  My Loyola doctor wants me to have an MRI to "rule out a recurrence".  Why bother...I'd die anyway because I can't afford treatment.   So sure, the government isn't denying me healthcare technically...but make no mistake about it, WE HAVE DEATH PANELS HERE!
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue May 01, 2018 5:21 pm

    See, as far as I understand, THAT is rationed care, Pam.
    avatar
    Blondy28
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1592
    Join date : 2009-04-11

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Blondy28 on Tue May 01, 2018 6:15 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:See, as far as I understand, THAT is rationed care, Pam.

    Back when I was in treatment in 2006, I was part of a young women's cancer group (diagnosed under 40), and the message board community was pretty vast...women from all over the world.  None of the women in other countries ever posted questions about how to get their treatment covered...it just was.  But there were daily posts from women in the US about coverage...even for standard of care.  I can still remember the poor young woman whose insurance wouldn't cover the anti-nausea medication for chemo because it wasn't "medically necessary"....and it was about $100/pill, so not exactly something everyone could just pay for out of pocket.

    Now many healthcare providers are actually requiring payment in advance.

    I get most of my prescriptions with a GoodRX coupon, and I get them from a bunch of different pharmacies, depending on which GoodRx coupon is cheapest.  We used to just get everything from Walgreens.  Aetna doesn't cover two of my prescriptions at all.  

    Healthcare here sucks.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed May 02, 2018 9:41 am

    Blondy28 wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:See, as far as I understand, THAT is rationed care, Pam.

    Back when I was in treatment in 2006, I was part of a young women's cancer group (diagnosed under 40), and the message board community was pretty vast...women from all over the world.  None of the women in other countries ever posted questions about how to get their treatment covered...it just was.  But there were daily posts from women in the US about coverage...even for standard of care.  I can still remember the poor young woman whose insurance wouldn't cover the anti-nausea medication for chemo because it wasn't "medically necessary"....and it was about $100/pill, so not exactly something everyone could just pay for out of pocket.

    Now many healthcare providers are actually requiring payment in advance.

    I get most of my prescriptions with a GoodRX coupon, and I get them from a bunch of different pharmacies, depending on which GoodRx coupon is cheapest.  We used to just get everything from Walgreens.  Aetna doesn't cover two of my prescriptions at all.  

    Healthcare here sucks.

    Agreed.  We hear from many that it's the greatest healthcare in the world.  Yeah, if you can afford it or have a gov't job or a wife that works at Verizon...then yes, it's fucking fantastic.  You can't call it great if it's only available to the most fortunate 60-70% of the American population, and isn't particularly available to the rest.  This notion of "Oh no, universal care will ration our care!" is another way of saying "I don't want to share my good fortune with the less fortunate."  In many cases, I don't think those throwing the "rationing care" claim out there even realize how damn selfish it sounds.  Shit, my father in law uses it all the time...."Socializing medicine will mean your care will be rationed!!!"  When I say "correction, it'll mean my good fortune will be shared", he looks at me like I'm completely nuts.  Maybe I am.  I think he just believes we should live in a me-first world where all that matters is whether I'm putting myself and my family in the best position for the best outcome with no consideration for anything else.  One time when I told him that the food stamps program is important to me for a million reasons, he asked me if I'll ever need them.  When I told him "no," he asked me "then why is it necessary?"  Yikes.  Fucking yikes.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Wed May 02, 2018 12:03 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:I don't have a solution (assuming I'm Kev's buddy) and am perfectly willing to admit that.  I assume that when we switch to nat'l health coverage, it'll be Canada-style where our docs remain private sector and bill the gov't for services rendered. 
    The KARK humbly disagrees.  It is my opinion that docs and other healthcare professionals would need to become government employees.  Reason, cut out the middle man.  Dr Fed only has to deal with his patients.  He doesn't need an admin staff to make sure all the bills are collected and paid.  If we are going to centalize, may as well go all the way.  Certainly makes things simpler.  Of course, I may have missed something, so i reserve my right to change my opinion

    I'm not quite sure how you expect to convince however many thousands or millions of docs to give up their private practice and to become employees of the US.  You are suggesting the England method.  I'm suggesting the Canada method.  Not sure there's a right or a wrong way, but if you go Canada-style, you can do it without as much bureaucracy by just allowing all existing med practices to continue as they have been running for years, but they'd be billing the G instead of Aetna or Blue Cross.  Additionally, in making all docs employees of the US, you'll have boutique docs making millions per year having to take a huge pay cut and low budget docs getting a nice raise.  I'm not sure exactly how you pull this off.  I'll bet it would be challenged in the courts.  Additionally, leaving docs as private practice allows them to work as much or as little as they wish in order to earn as much or little as suits them.

    Never considered that.  Although I'm sure you can see my point that making docs federal employees would make things simpler and hopefully cheaper.  But as you point out, it may just be too big of an overreach.  So I'll concede that my original point is not an absolute requirement.  But maintain it makes things simpler at a macro level


     How will it be paid for?  That I don't know.  A sales tax?  A tax that is paid by corporations currently paying for health benefits?  A higher income tax rate?  I would pull it out of the corporate world altogether (or for the most part) 

    And this makes perfect sense since most of us get coverage via our employer.  As a rough guess, if healthcare is 1/6 the economy, I guess that 1/2 of that is paid by employers.  But then that is a guess.  Not sure what the Labor Bureau reports.

    1/2 is likely a safe estimate.  Seeing as universal care nations are closer to 10-14% of GDP, I suspect we can drop back from 1/6 of our economy to closer to 1/7th, hypothetically, by cutting out the insurance companies.

    If I remember 2005 correctly, direct payments to the healthcare provider are 50% insurance, 40% gov program, 10% directly from payment.  


    and bump it over to the payroll tax side and let it be a line item tax in payroll that can be adjusted annually for cost shortfalls or overruns.  That would be a nice, temporary bonus for the corporate world, but I believe most of that money would be negotiated into the income of the workers by guys like you and me going to our boss and advising them "hey, I need that benefits expense in the form of income to pay this new tax."  Perhaps there'd even be some kind of gov't mandate to redirect that money (or some of it) to the employees for the sake of paying this tax, akin to how employers pay part of our SS tax.  
    Not sure I completely follow.  Lets see, single payer, the employers are just relieved of a very large benefits expense.  However, it would be replace by a new tax.  In a perfect world, the tax would be equal to what the old benefits cost would be.  Therefore, the employer and employee would stay the same.  In the real world, it won't be that simple.  Any change will create winners and losers.

    There will always be winners and losers, but how do you manage doing this through employers when so many of them don't provide healthcare coverage benefits?  You guys have your dry cleaner.  Would you be exempted for being a smallish company?  Always struck me as odd that companies are expected to carry this expense, and it ultimately just becomes a part of what the company is expected to pay to the employee as income expense.  Do you think that if a company no longer had to pay this that employees would push their pay higher through negotiation?  I suspect that they would.  There'd be a lull, though, during which the employer is keeping more, and the employee is paying a higher tax.  There'd suddenly be this 10-12% line item tax on our paycheck against our income, so you'd figure that the people would go to their employers and basically insist on receiving this, or demanding this.  Could the G get involved and mandate this be paid out to the employee in years one and two, and assume that after it's no longer mandated, the dust would clear in a manner that settles into making those pay increases permanent for most people?  That's possibly naive on my part, since I don't generally trust large corporations with shareholders beholden to their share price.  

    I think that for now, I'm inclined to want to see this be a base, line item tax that can be adjusted annually, and have it be decoupled either entirely from employers, or see it phased out of employers responsibility.  



    If the KARK is anywhere close to his 50% estimate of who currently pays, I don't think its possible to dump this all on corporate America.


    You can thank FDR for employer provided health insurance.  Something to do with a 1943 wage freeze.  So employers increased benefits to lure employees and the employees liked the perk and it never went away


    And yes, there will be winners and losers and that the problem because nobody wants to be in the losing group and very few politicians will have the balls to tell Verizon employees and public sector workers that they can kiss their current coverage goodbye, your going into the national plan.  So all you people making 6 figures better get use to paying a deductible because the more you make, the more you pay in order to make sure the rich pay their fair share.


    BTW, you don't need to tax employees like FICA.  You can do it as an employer only head tax.  You can do it as a gross receipts tax.  You can make it progressive so my Retail Beauty Supply Store isn't nailed a rate only the Verizons can afford.


    Also not sure how many employees would demand higher pay.  As I have suggested numerous times that we should demand this now, only to get shutdown by everybody including you.  I would think an employer would tell his employees that the tax is about the same as the old insurance premiums and that would shut up just about everybody.


    Regardless, we can invent new tax schemes until we a blue in the face.  Its just nice to see you realizing this is the real discussion and actually thinking about it like an adult instead of just claiming conservatives want people to get sick and die while the rich get richer

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Wed May 02, 2018 12:07 pm

    Blondy28 wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:See, as far as I understand, THAT is rationed care, Pam.

    Back when I was in treatment in 2006, I was part of a young women's cancer group (diagnosed under 40), and the message board community was pretty vast...women from all over the world.  None of the women in other countries ever posted questions about how to get their treatment covered...it just was.  But there were daily posts from women in the US about coverage...even for standard of care.  I can still remember the poor young woman whose insurance wouldn't cover the anti-nausea medication for chemo because it wasn't "medically necessary"....and it was about $100/pill, so not exactly something everyone could just pay for out of pocket.

    Now many healthcare providers are actually requiring payment in advance.

    I get most of my prescriptions with a GoodRX coupon, and I get them from a bunch of different pharmacies, depending on which GoodRx coupon is cheapest.  We used to just get everything from Walgreens.  Aetna doesn't cover two of my prescriptions at all.  

    Healthcare here sucks.


    YET THE USA HAS THE HIGHEST CANCER SURVIVAL RATE IN THE WORLD

    MAYBE ITS YOUR SITUATION THAT SUCKS AND YOU ARE MERELY PROJECTING
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed May 02, 2018 12:44 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    Also not sure how many employees would demand higher pay.  As I have suggested numerous times that we should demand this now, only to get shutdown by everybody including you.  I would think an employer would tell his employees that the tax is about the same as the old insurance premiums and that would shut up just about everybody.

    It's not that I've shut you down.  I've just noted that average Joe American isn't willing to take the time to become as gainfully involved in this process as you have.  I personally manage my 401k and IRA and move money around from fund to fund based on things I see in the economy, but I'd not expect or try requiring that of others.  There are ways to navigate the health insurance world that could save us money and be a better way, but those roads are littered with peril and some confusion.   

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Guest on Wed May 02, 2018 6:00 pm

    Understood

    Which is exactly why I am open to a Nationally ran single payer system

    If I really were the person some here insist I must be, I’d say “F” you all, free market all the way.  I strongly feel I would come out ahead because I would make sure I’d buy coverage b4 a trip to Disneyworld.

    I also realize the above might not be fair to the Blondy’s of the world.  So again, by keeping an open mind and analyzing the pros and cons, I’m probably the rare conservative open to single payer.  And yes, I think there is a conservative argument for this typically left wing position
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed May 02, 2018 9:14 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Understood

    Which is exactly why I am open to a Nationally ran single payer system

    If I really were the person some here insist I must be, I’d say “F” you all, free market all the way.  I strongly feel I would come out ahead because I would make sure I’d buy coverage b4 a trip to Disneyworld.

    I also realize the above might not be fair to the Blondy’s of the world.  So again, by keeping an open mind and analyzing the pros and cons, I’m probably the rare conservative open to single payer.  And yes, I think there is a conservative argument for this typically left wing position

    Actually, most right wingers I personally know, after I have some of these same discussions with them, say they'd be open to it if it could be done without a massive tax increase and yada yada yada.  I mean, we pay 1/6 of the freaking GDP in the form of medical costs and insurance premiums.  We'd no longer be paying that 1/6 into the GDP, so we could afford a pretty sizable tax increase I'm thinking.  And yes, there'd be some winners (Blondy) and some losers (me and Kevin, whose quality of service would decrease, possibly), and there'd be people that would lose the benefit at work and not gain back the income.  Of course, a guy like Kevin would gain it back cuz you know damn well that his union would recoup every penny, so that he could afford the tax, so it'd have a net zero or net positive financial effect on him.   
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7601
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by alohafri on Thu May 03, 2018 9:13 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:Understood

    Which is exactly why I am open to a Nationally ran single payer system

    If I really were the person some here insist I must be, I’d say “F” you all, free market all the way.  I strongly feel I would come out ahead because I would make sure I’d buy coverage b4 a trip to Disneyworld.

    I also realize the above might not be fair to the Blondy’s of the world.  So again, by keeping an open mind and analyzing the pros and cons, I’m probably the rare conservative open to single payer.  And yes, I think there is a conservative argument for this typically left wing position

    Actually, most right wingers I personally know, after I have some of these same discussions with them, say they'd be open to it if it could be done without a massive tax increase and yada yada yada.  I mean, we pay 1/6 of the freaking GDP in the form of medical costs and insurance premiums.  We'd no longer be paying that 1/6 into the GDP, so we could afford a pretty sizable tax increase I'm thinking.  And yes, there'd be some winners (Blondy) and some losers (me and Kevin, whose quality of service would decrease, possibly), and there'd be people that would lose the benefit at work and not gain back the income.  Of course, a guy like Kevin would gain it back cuz you know damn well that his union would recoup every penny, so that he could afford the tax, so it'd have a net zero or net positive financial effect on him.   

    Until the Janus decision and I'm down to making what a cashier at the Jewels makes.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu May 03, 2018 9:31 am

    alohafri wrote:


    Until the Janus decision and I'm down to making what a cashier at the Jewels makes.

    I dated a Jewels cashier from the Dolton Jewels in college.  She made a bunch of money at that job.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7601
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by alohafri on Thu May 03, 2018 10:15 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:


    Until the Janus decision and I'm down to making what a cashier at the Jewels makes.

    I dated a Jewels cashier from the Dolton Jewels in college.  She made a bunch of money at that job.

    Of course she did. We all dated her...for $20 bucks an hour. Wink

    Sponsored content

    Re: Here's your socialized medicine.

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:03 pm