What is single payer?

Oddly enough, with this terrible healthcare, these socialistic hell holes manage to best the U.S. in every measure of health, longevity, infant mortality, etc.

 

Ironic!

Because they are not relevant.

Ironic given what you posted below!

Utter nonsense! Purchases of new equipment and technology are EXPENSES, not profits.

Not necessarily. Government does not operate on a profit driven motive.

So healthcare costs have increased by 150%?



No, it doesn't work that way!

The only reason why technology costs are so high is because the PRIVATE SECTOR had FAILED to keep up with technology. That is a one cost that will end up saving money once a standardized system is implemented nationwide.

Consumer demand was only there because the PRIVATE SECTOR had FAILED to provide affordable healthcare to everyone. Once that demand has been satisfied it will drop to align with population growth.

Expanding health benefits was only there because the PRIVATE SECTOR had FAILED to provide adequate health benefits to the consumers. Again this is a one time cost.

Healthcare price inflation is caused by the PRIVATE SECTOR who FAILED miserably to contain costs as they had promised to do over and over again. They ended up being the primary driver of HC inflation. A single payer solution will eliminate this cause of HC inflation.

Administrative costs are a one time set up fee for Obamacare. It won't be necessary if everyone switches over to Medicare since the one time cost will already have been paid.

Gosh, the Boomers are reaching retirement age. Who could ever have seen that coming?

 

The USA private sector automatically rations healthcare by excluding all of those who can't afford to pay for it.

 

A few facts, you seem to be in need of them.


1. East Germany ceased to exist 26 years ago
2. The old East Germany became united with West Germany in 1990
3. Germany is now a Christian Democratic State.

 

East Germany was liberal?

 

Medicare only covers 80 percent of a lot of costs. It depends.

Personally, I believe, single payer systems are the only way to ensure we're not overcharging our already poor young people to subsidize the cost of our older people.

The only reason it isn't single payer now is because of corporate shills like Paul Ryan, whos biggest donors include Aetna, pitching some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about free market solutions.

It's utter nonsense, and they shouldn't be trusted if they're taking money from corporations with a vested interest in continuing their cash grab on America.

 

I find it amusing that you think overhead costs don't count. You get that small percentage by leaving out tons of cost that the government spends to apply Medicare. You are also not very aware of government culture. Single payor basically Medicare for all would run like the VA and you see the problems and wait lists there. The culture in the VA is that the only way you can get fired is if you were a whistleblower so the VA is filled with people that don't do or barely do their jobs.

 

I certainly do. It is in the data of what Medicare pays I posted.

Same.

See above.

Miniscule.

See above etc. etc. etc.

You obviously didn't read my whole post. I never claimed that 3% is the total Medicare cost.

Here is the rest of it:

+++

In 2006, (the latest data I've found so far), those 65 and older (and covered by Medicare) account for 38% of all inpatient hospital visits.

By 2006, 38 percent of inpatients were aged 65 years and over, with those aged 75 years and over comprising 24 percent of all inpatients.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr005.pdf page1

In 2003, one study reported that almost 44% of total hospital costs were spent on seniors:

Persons age 65 and older had more hospital stays than any other age group in 2003. While the elderly comprised about 12 percent of the U.S. population,* they accounted for one out of three hospital stays (13.2 million hospitalizations) and 43.6 percent of the national hospital bill—nearly $329 billion.
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb6.pdf [2003]

I have not found data that details variations in procedures, but the typical stay of those 65 and older is longer than that of other age groups:

The average length of stay for those aged 65 years and over was 5.5 days; for those aged 45–64 years, it was 5.0 days; for those aged 15–44 years, it was 3.7 days; and for children under age 15 years, it was 4.8 days.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr005.pdf page1

The mean length of stay for patients 65 and older was 1.7 days longer and mean hospital charges were 46 percent higher than non-elderly hospital stays, but there was no difference in mean charges per day.
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb6.pdf

Furthermore, "The federal government estimates that 70 percent of health-care expenditures are spent on the elderly, 80 percent of that in the last month of life"
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19905093

This data suggests it is unlikely that the hospital visits by seniors on average are less costly than those of younger people.

In 2006, total US health spending was $2.1 trillion.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/con.../1/14.abstract

Medicare spending in 2006 was $373.6 billion.
Source: CBO Historical budget data. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911 Table F-5.

So what this means is that although Medicare covered 38% of inpatient hospital care (and probably a higher percentage of total health care cost), it spent only 18% of total health care costs.

Now, I don't know for sure whether hospitalizations is a perfect substitute for total health care costs, but it seems reasonable, and the 43% from 2003 suggests that if anything, the total health care cost incurred by seniors is proportionately higher. The data suggests that the proportion of total use of health care procedures on seniors would be a little higher that the proportion of inpatient hospital stays.

But if we assume that the proportion of total health care use by seniors is equivalent to the proportion of hospital stays, and that the cost of services used would equivalent, then, extrapolating the data, we can say that if Medicare covered 100% of health care, the cost would be $938 billion. Or a savings of over $1 trillion compared to the $2.1 trillion total health care cost in 2006.

The vast bulk of Americans (and certainly most seniors) like Medicare, and the data suggests that it provides health care coverage far more efficiently than the private system. Essentially making the Medicare system available to all Americans, and reap huge overall cost savings, certainly makes some sense to me.

 

I have had one point from the beginning, and have been 100% correct in that point. You replied to my post, and while trying to refute my point unsuccessfully, you eventually settled into arguing against a point that had never been made, which is the very definition of a strawman argument. There is not one bit of irony involved.

 

Single player are games that you play against the computer that do not involve other human beings. Early videogame systems such as the Atari 2600 and the Nintendo Entertainment System had limited processing power confining them to single player experiences only. Second and third generation videogame systems allowed for up to 4-player games (most notably, GoldenEye on the N64). Single player games have all but met their demise over the years as high speed internet has given rise to massively multiplayer games.

 

You are fallaciously comparing apples and oranges.

Medicare does not run any hospitals or medical facilities whatsoever, is just a single payer insurance provider.

Please research the vast difference between medical service providers and medical insurance providers.

TYIA

 

Still quibbling over inane semantics?

 

So going back to your original argument which you have abandoned you are entirely wrong. Comparing Medicare to hospitals is apples to oranges. Comparing Medicare to private health insurance is apples to apples. That 3% number that you provided does not include all of the overhead cost that private insurers cover. That would be the cost of buildings the cost of the other divisions that are not counted in the 3% that collect like the IRS. I could go on but your comparison is apples to oranges.

Government is woefully inefficient and wasteful. If you count those costs apples to apples you would probably find the government cost a lot more than private insurance with profit.

FYI: Health insurance profits are some of the lowest in business. Around 3%, not 20%.

 

If by inane semantics you mean correctly pointing out that your argument is a shameless strawman, then yes, I suppose I am.

 

An MRI costs three times as much in the US. Medications twice as much. There are no 50 dollar charges for aspirin in single payer countries. Profit destroys healthcare

 

Government spends 60% of healthcare dollars. There is no competition.

 

because Democrats make competition illegal. Astounding that you didn't know that!!

- - - Updated - - -

or in capitalist countries!!! Astounding!!!!

 

you mean profit creates healthcare. Without it no one would invest in the healthcare industry or any industry. Do you know why the USSR had 10% of our standard of living?? Isn't learning the best?

 

sounds cheap. Does this mean that soviet govt should run food clothing and shelter industries too since it is so efficient?

 

Government needs to spend 100 percent and then we will have prices like they do in these other countries

- - - Updated - - -

Why is healthcare so much cheaper and better in other countries

 

so you want govt to buy as all autos as needed since socialism works after all?

- - - Updated - - -

very very simple!! we are richer so our socialism is more wasteful than theirs. Now do you understand?

 

Nope just healthcare. The model works in every other first world country. We are wasting billions

 

in education too. Where ever you have govt monopoly you have huge waste and corruption( 40% in Medicare alone) . We are rich and capitalist in most industries so we have tons to waste in socialist health care and education. Now do you understand.

 

Six million people lost their healthcare due to the ACA.

 

Well we can make healthcare a single payer and eliminate most of that waste like they do in other capitalist countries like Germany, the U.K., Canada.....etc

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the net is many millions that gained healthcare