Universal Healthcare

Was that required in SB-562?

 

Like I said, I'll walk you through it.
Lets use a 64 year old to keep is simple.
How much does insurance cost for a 64 year old.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/re...ct/much-health-insurance-cost-without-subsidy
Use a silver plan equivalent. It's probably the best buy.

 

No idea. Was it?

 

I thinking more about Klobuchar's plan for a nonprofit public option.

It's conservative. It's an enhancement to what we have. It could be managed by Medicare, which is already in place and doing a good job. If it succeeds it can be grown. It will force insurance companies to get more competitive.

That doesn't solve the problem of those who still can't afford it, of course.

I'd point out that the president doesn't have much power when it comes to legislation. So, one has to be a little careful with this idea of thinking the president will decide what health care system we have.

Trump has failed to kill Obamacare even when the Republican majority in congress tried to do that for YEARS!! In fact, after all that time we don't even know what Trump might WANT!

For ALL our problems, we need a more effective president - one who can find and work with smart people, form a plan, care about the details, think things through, talk to the whole country, etc.

 

There is enough savings between Medicare and private to price it slightly above cost to subsidize the poor.

 

Hong Kong?

 

None of that is even remotely true. You can see whoever you want, whenever you want, and convalesce wherever you want. We're all free to pay for private healthcare, OR use the public system .. when it comes to hospital treatment. When it comes to our regular doctor, there's no govt involvement at all (other than in the payment of the bill), since regular doctors are private practitioners.

Where on earth do you get guys get these odd ideas about public health?

 

Exactly how it would have played out here, under public health. What you guys don't seem to grasp is that our medical professionals and associated services (medical imaging, pathology labs, etc) are all PRIVATE PRACTICES, and make no distinction between those paying via public purse, and those paying out of pocket. It's exactly the same as it is there, the only difference is in who pays at the end of it all.

 

It would be utterly disastrous, yes. And serves no purpose whatsoever.

Bernie is a terrible socialist, really. Here, we're actually penalised (via increased tax levy) if we don't take out private insurance .. above a certain income threshold. This is to relieve pressure on the system. Hit the rich, etc. You'd think Berns would be down with that.

 

No one thinks the president decides these things. But the last thing we need is another half measure like the ACA. Yes, we need a president who will work with congress. We need a president who has a clear plan in the making so that if you were to repeal Obamacare there is something better to replace it with.

The only way to test if universal healthcare works is to actually have universal healthcare, not some expansion, because for it to be cost effective everyone has to contribute to the pool and you can't have private insurance providing the same coverage the public option already provides. It takes from the public pool which is one of the reasons universal coverage is more efficient. And then people (and republicans) are going to say, oh it's still terrible and inefficient and they would be right. Then we are just right back where we were. And of course (with this plan) people including the rich are free to buy supplemental insurance, they just can't purchase private insurance that is already provided by the public. A lot of news outlets have been falsely claiming that Bernies plan would make private insurance illegal. No, it just makes private insurance that provides double coverage illegal (that is coverage that is already provided by the public). That would be redundant and defeat the purpose of having a public pool of resources for healthcare in the first place. If you still allow private insurance for the same coverage we are going to continue have the same problems we are having now, except that now it's the taxpayers that now pay the heavy cost burden for healthcare.

The only way to fix our system is to remove what's already in place and replace it with universal coverage for citizens where citizens cannot purchase coverage that the public option already provides.

 

Eh, what? You'll have to show me how Europe has 26% Latino/Hispanic, and I don't mean white Spaniards, I mean mixed race Mestizos. You'll notice in the next few years how the healthcare system in France breaks down under the weight of so many Somalis in the country.

 

OK I've gone over this at least twice and at this point it's safe to say that you're not going to understand it.

 

What I was discussing, so...of course.

 

Bernie is basically running on the Soviet model, and except for immigration, hasn't changed his policies since the sixties. It's astounding that such antiquated ideas have such traction in the current American political scene.

 

Afraid to try and prove your case?

 

What is the case you think I'm trying to prove?

 

That allowing people to buy into Medicare won't save a bunch of money for Americans.

 

Obstruction of justice, checks and balances, emoluments laws, laws on foreign contributions to US election campaigns, impeachment ...

We have lots of "old" ideas that are being challenged by the president today.

 

No wonder you've been confused. That hasn't been my thesis at all.

 

All roads lead to Orange Man Bad.

 

I wasn't talking "spaniards" .. the 26% figure comes from the data you posted.

Regardless Europe has a whole lot of immigrants (some of which will represent classes who utilize healthcare more) .. the ratios of medical attention required over all demographics is not going to be that different.

 

There must have been something about us already having a test for how it would work you didn't understand.

 

Now you're just ignoring facts.

Best estimate I could make is that the Hispanic population of Spain is no more than about 5% of the population, and the Hispanic portion of the rest of Europe will be lower than that. So I'm still waiting for where you got your 26% figure.

France is already burning from its immigrant population, with three churches a day being attacked by immigrant Muslims. The average IQ of Maghrebis, immigrants from northern Africa, is 85, similar to that of American blacks, and they now number 6% of France's population and growing rapidly. The Arab population of Europe exploded during 2016 and 2017, the ramifications of which will be long-lasting and 100% negative. The average Arab IQ is 80, below even that of American blacks. Some 90% of Arabs in Sweden are unemployed, and the few that are employed work for the government. So approximately 100% of Arabs in Sweden are being supported by the state and are not self-supporting.

 

You are the one ignoring facts .. .and the fact is that Europe has demographic groups that have a higher usage of healthcare (regardless of whether or not they are hispanic or black) - just like we do.

The question for the mathemeticians is then - what is this collective utilization rate of all groups in one nation relative to another.

You have not provided this figure -

In this post you bring up Arab IQ ? OK ... but this does not help our calculation.

 

The problem is that most European countries don't count by race & ethnicity, and aren't as obsessed with statistics like we are. But the best estimates are that up until the last ten years or so, all European countries with socialized medicine were 90-99% white. Only in the last decade or so has the percentage of non-whites in European countries started to grow beyond the 10% mark, and whether that will make socialized medicine unaffordable there or not remains to be seen. Already in the UK, the NHS is facing significant shortfalls because the working population isn't keeping up with the population on welfare. What we know is that it's unaffordable with just 67% of the population being white. The collective utilization rate in the US is what tells us it is unaffordable. When even the OMB tells you that it will cost 2.5x the entire budget, you know it's going to be expensive, and the OMB perennially underestimates expenses by some 89%... actual expenses end up being nine times more than the original OMB estimate.