Bloomberg explaining how healthcare will “bankrupt us,” unless we deny care to the elderly.

That may be part of it. As far as I know, the great healthcare debate in '09-'10 didn't involve any research to find out why healthcare costs are so high. If so, I would like to see it. Why do hospitals charge 10-100X the price for the stuff that they make you pay for? Why do I have to spend 2 hours out of my day to have a 10 minute visit with a doctor to get a prescription for an antibiotic that I already knew that I needed and have to pay $65 for the privilege? Why does any drug cost $100 a pill in the US when Mexico can sell it to you for $5? Why are hospitals and insurance companies allowed to collude on prices? These are all questions that need an answer.

 

Bloomberg is kind of an ass and doesn't mince words. His level of centrism and pragmatism makes him completely out of step with the rest of the democratic party. And he is lacking in big ideas and plans people can get behind. Buttigieg is a much better candidate for the moderate dem position, even if he is inexperienced.

 

The script is that the Dems need someone who can defeat PODS trump. Bloomers is being cast as that person and when he teams up with LCH, they will win easily. So, get to know your future Dem President, Bloomers. You already know LCH.

 

They will help you achieve this goal

 

ruth buzzie ginsburg is none too happy.

 

bloomy is a big time Dunning-Kruger sufferer.

 

Old enough to have money to pay for any medical services he may want.

 

The democrat want to live in a "Logan's Run" society where when you get to 30 you've to go to the caroussel to be "renewed" or hunted down by the sandman...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

 

What we have now is going to be more expensive.

 

yes, yes yes and yes.

 

Well, he has a point; but it ought to be a personal decision, not a bureaucratic rule.

 

Cuz you probably didn't need it anyway.

 

Bloomberg lives by the golden rule.

 

Medicare doesn't ration.
Currently 90 year old patients can get prosthetic hips, emergency laparotomies, aortic valve replacements, months on the vent with peg tubes and dialysis prior to death, just because they want it.

The idiot voters have no idea that this will be cut off

 

well, if you believe that govt should control your health care, then you also assign to them the right to determine what services you do or do not get.

The left is all about control of the people. That has never changed; look to the Nazis

 

No, no, no,..... this is America.
We can have as much as we want, whenever we want it, and however we want it, and someone else is gonna pay for it.

 

Don't worry, Bloomberg will be fine, he can afford the best medical care money can buy. You on the other hand can't afford that level of care. Why would Doomberg care as long as he can buy his way to health.

 

How many unemployed people can afford insurance? Insurance is expensive.

 

Insurance is a few hundred a month. If you are unemployed and not living paycheck to paycheck then you can afford it. However, it will be a big financial hit. This is why I think unemployed people should definitely be eligible for public insurance. So I will ask you again. Lets say that you are long-term unemployed without insurance, and you get cancer. What should you do?

 

What we have now is not more expensive than covering everything. Long-term care in nursing homes is 100K per year, and is usually not covered. If we were to cover that, premiums would skyrocket.

 

We are all indoctrinated to believe that insurance is a cure-all it isn't they are just in the business to make money. If they weren't making money they would go out of business. Give me a link to decent costing insurance with little or no co-pay that an unemployed person can afford.

 

He wouldn't.
Them controlling us is the objective.

 

Ok, so you are unwilling to directly answer my question. Perhaps you can't.

I am going to put forward the pros and cons of your plan:
1: Pro. Reduction in administrative costs. Administrative costs are about 25% of all healthcare cost. They include insurance administrative costs, hospital administrative costs, the cost from middlemen, corporate profits, executive pay, and legal expenses. I suspect we would lose a bit less than half of that if we removed insurance. So the cost of healthcare would decline by about 10% from reduced administration.
2: Pro. Reduced cost from reduced use. Since people will have to pay for everything out of pocket, we can expect to see people use healthcare services a lot less. We can also expect people opt out of using expensive services a lot more. Usually, these costs are bundled into the healthcare premium, but this will be no more. Hospitals may also reduce prices to attract the lost customers from reduced use.
3: Pro. Reduced cost from better lifestyles. Its possible that since healthcare will be 100% of out pocket, that people will try harder to live healthier lifestyles to avoid going to the doctor. However, people already engage in unhealthy habits knowing the consequences, so I am not how much lifestyles will improve.
4: Con. Increased cost from less preventative care. Since people will have to pay the full cost of every test and checkup, people will reduce their use of healthcare. This can dramatically increase the cost of healthcare. For example, missing cancer screening, may result in cancer being detected very late, and requiring much more expensive treatment. In general, decreased use of care, results in reduced, health, which results in greater use of health services, which results in increased cost.
5: Con. Increased cost from less bargaining power. Insurance companies can often negotiate lower prices from hospitals because they cover so much of their customer base. Without this bargaining power, individuals will have to negotiate prices with the hospitals all be themselves with much less bargaining power.
6: Con. Increased cost from paying for the indebted. Many people will be unable to pay for their medical bills, especially many of the college students, the long-term unemployed, poor people, old people, and people with expensive medical conditions. This will result in millions of people in permanent healthcare debt. The hospital will have to pay the bills somehow and that cost will be shifted onto those who are paying their bills.
7. Con. Decreased health and life expectancy. With people paying out of pocket, people will use healthcare services a lot less resulting in decreased health and life expectancy.
8. Con. More healthcare debt and bankruptcies. Many people are living from paycheck to paycheck, and can't afford their medical bills, or the medical bills are too expensive, like for cancer, life-saving drugs, or long-term care. This will result in more people being in healthcare debt, garnished wages, and bankruptcies. Healthcare debt will keep millions of people in the underclass with almost no escape.
9. Con. Damage to the economy. A less healthy population results in a less healthy workforce. Also its possible that people won't use healthcare services as much which can hurt jobs in the healthcare sector in the short-term. But the increase in advanced health conditions may counter-balance that, and people might find other uses for their money than healthcare.
But we will also see a lot more people saving a lot of money in case a medical emergency comes up. This will result in reduced economic spending and less jobs. They may also invest less of that saved money so an economic downturn won't hurt their emergency healthcare fund, or invest it in low-risk, low yield options that they can pull out immediately.
Additionally, a significant number of people will be in debt, and don't be able to invest in education and skills that help the economy and normal spending which creates jobs.

 

Insurance is still the problem, not the answer. You sound like an insurance salesman.
Where is the link to the lower-cost insurance for unemployed people? You didn't answer my question either.

 

That would more likely be libertarians on record.