Medicare for all???

Good god, I cannot imagine discussing money with health carers ... at ALL, much less before treatment. Having never done it (not being a purchaser of the private allied healthcare which must be paid for (chiropracty, accupuncture, etc), it gives me the cold shivers.

 

Is that another way of saying "I prefer not to answer" ?

 

In the 1940s and '50s, large companies with their collective bargaining unions found out that they could get reduced health care insurance with group rates. It was a way of satisfying union demands and attracting employees. Now everyone just expects a large company to bargain for group rates.

 

It makes no sense in any form. Outside of America, employers don't provide health insurance. It's not a thing. It was never a thing, even before we had public health.

Your unions are idiots, if they bought that deal. The corporate sector had you over a barrel there.

 

Except you were wrong.

 

Let's keep one thing in mind, he who has the gold doesn't have to worry about the rules -- in general.

It's not an issue about access to healthcare, it's about accessing affordable healthcare.

You say it is not the function of government to ensure everyone receives proper healthcare and treatment, but the question we need to be asking is is an individual's health and the pursuit of life, a Human Right. If we refuse to answer the ethical implications of our silence, we will not be able to address the issue of costs.

By simply denying coverage to people because of their citizenship status, are we willing to admit that we are perfectly fine with allowing people to die for conditions and illnesses that could have been easily treated earlier had they access to healthcare? Because for the most part, that has been the modus operandi of our healthcare for quite a long time. So by not addressing this issue, we really will not be solving the costs too, because sooner or later, the poor, uninsured, and undocumented will show up at the ER.

 

The US evolution of companies providing health insurance started way back in the 30s. This was well before OSHA rules established safety standards for businesses. Employers were always having to deal with loss of production because of employees getting sick or injured, so it made sense for them to start providing health insurance to keep their workforce healthy and productive. Back then, insurance cost pennies on the head of each employee. Now, the costs are a gargantuan.

That system also assumed you would work for the same employer for 20 to 40 years before retiring. So many things have changed since that time.

 

Wouldn't come close here.
Even if we cut it in half it would take 11%.

 

There is no tax levy yet.
It can be funded in multiple ways.
If it's so wonderful and saves money, why is everyone not just happy to save money on their premiums and costs, and mail them in to the government.

Why should this turn into a subsidy from higher earners to lower earners?

 

The people advocating it here want the coverage they have now, and a much cheeper price.
And it's being promised to them by politicians trying to buy votes

 

I would wager there are a lot of tax dollars coming from your general fund.

 

It doesnt have to be funded by taxes.
Its funded by premiums now.
Why do you want a tax based system?

 

Those same conditions existed all over the industrialised world, yet employer funded insurance never happened. Our unions negotiated for different benefits (more money, and improved workplace safety), with a better end result. Our unions demanded things that corporations were much less willing to give. Seems your corporate sector had you guys for dinner, in choosing health insurance as the least costly to them.

 

For sure. But the primary funding comes from the tax levy.

 

In which case there's some serious misunderstanding of what public health is. In terms of hospitals, it means medically necessary care .. delivered in the most basic form possible. Hospitals are clean, safe, and well run, but they are NOT plush. It's hard plastic chairs, 4 or 8 to a room, shared bathrooms, one pillow per bed, and you get what you get in the way of meals. You won't be able to get a facelift or an elective caesarian section .. but your bad knee will be replaced, eventually.

Ordinary day to day care is via private practitioners, just like yours - only difference is our system picks up the tab. The doctor/specialist themselves couldn't care less, and usually has no idea how you'll pay (we pay AFTER treatment, in this country). Waiting times for ordinary day to day care is whatever it is for a given practice. It has nothing to do with the system.

 

Not here.
They are being promised the best available, to everyone.

 

Well its earmarked for that, but there is no way they are funding the system on 2%.
That's only $1000 for an entire family with an income of $50,000, likely near the average income.

 

I want Medicare for all that want it because it saves us a ton of money.
With some of that extra money I have no problem helping out the poor.

 

oh yeah. Forgot. All of you internet rich guys just dying to give your money away.
Never saw that coming.

 

Average income in this country isn't $50k.

 

What do you mean by 'the best', though? Or what do THEY mean?

When it comes to medicine, 'the best' is your odds of survival. That's literally the only useful measure of quality.

 

They aren't looking for basic care.
They want the best money can buy, for cheep

 

What is it?
Ours is around $50k

 

$110k, roughly.

 

I knew you wouldn't.