|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
05-15-2017, 10:46 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,068
|
|
If there was a practical acceptable free market approach to basic universally affordable health care, I think we would already have it.
Getting down to one payer, full participation, effective independent oversight, and no stockholders to pander is the only way I see to minimise costs.
Another major plus, employers are not obligated or involved.
What's not to like?
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Last edited by Pio1980; 05-15-2017 at 11:30 AM.
|
05-15-2017, 11:25 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Forget it, you're proven wrong and still insist you're right. How on earth can ~50% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings save enough with an HSA to realize any meaningful tax savings? Answer: They can't, and even if they could, they'd save at 10% rather than 39.6%. I'm done with this pointless back-and-forth.
|
You're done, because you have no answers. You couldn't provide even a suggestion for a reasonable alternative. I've spend a lot of time laying out these points in detail, and all you've done is reply "You're wrong" without any rationale or alternatives, other than posting talking points from Dem web sites. Pathetic.
You're question above - asked and answered in a previous post: Scenario 2. Most folks could use the savings on premium to fund their HSA's. That's exactly what we do, and it works great. I know many other folks who do the same.
You were "done" a long time ago.
|
05-15-2017, 11:44 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio1980
If there was a free market approach to basic universally affordable health care, I think we would already have it.
Getting down to one payer, full participation, effective independent oversight, and no stockholders to pander is the only way I see to minimise costs.
|
We had it. We pissed it away years ago.
This idea that single payer somehow minimizes costs is absurd as well. You don't have to look far to see that single payer systems have their problem with funding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ario-1.3550454
http://www.theactuary.com/news/2016/...unsustainable/
From that CBC story:
Health is the biggest item in Ontario's 2016 budget, comprising about 42 per cent of the province's total program spending. But doctors say that isn't enough, and because of a lack of funding, family practices and hospitals are having to close their doors.
Dr. Suzanne Dullege, a family physician in Madoc, Ont., said that her practice's lab was shut down due to spending cuts.
"That leaves a practice with 6,000 patients with no lab. The closest lab is 45 minutes away," she said. "We have thousands of patients getting lab work, and so the doctors had to pick up that cost ... to the tune of $8,000 each per year."
In Canada, the provinces run their own systems with funding from Ottawa. Ontario, which has a number of larger cities including Toronto, Hamilton and the capital of Ottawa, is currently devoting 42% of its budget to health care. Yet this year's budget calls for more spending and increased debt.
Single payer systems are sinking. We don't need to emulate that here.
|
05-15-2017, 11:49 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,068
|
|
So, if that's the most efficient way to provide care for all, then there's no answer?
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Last edited by Pio1980; 05-15-2017 at 12:51 PM.
|
05-15-2017, 11:54 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,068
|
|
As I understand insurance, spreading liabilities across the broadest payment base and controlling ancillary costs provides the lowest overhead and lowest individual cost.
Picking and choosing clients and coverage limits coverage and excludes participation.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
|
05-15-2017, 01:10 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,068
|
|
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
|
05-15-2017, 08:14 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,914
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
You're done, because you have no answers...
|
I'm sure your Trumpenfuhrer will figure it out. If he needs some help, maybe you can email your solution for Steve Doocey to brief him on Fox&Friends - if he doesn't get impeached first.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-16-2017, 08:24 AM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Forget it, you're proven wrong and still insist you're right. How on earth can ~50% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings save enough with an HSA to realize any meaningful tax savings? Answer: They can't, and even if they could, they'd save at 10% rather than 39.6%. I'm done with this pointless back-and-forth.
|
Being have nots, the folks you're referencing don't count in the Republican world.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
|
05-16-2017, 07:31 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 8,213
|
|
There needs to oversight of the charges. For one all the suits and giveaways going in and out of Doctors offices from Pharma.........
Then the kickbacks from the manufactures and software distributors of medical needs.
Barney
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.
|