ObamaCare and Bankruptcy

[Pio1980]

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?

[whell]

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.

[whell]

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.

[Pio1980]

So, if that's the most efficient way to provide care for all, then there's no answer?

[Pio1980]

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.

[Pio1980]

Just trying a websearch.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...ayer_facts.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0f633072b37f8

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/august...ons_of_sin.php

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...ont-thinks-so/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/o...alth-care.html

[finnbow]

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.

[nailer]

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.

[sheltiedave]

Rather than cherrypicking health care costs, it may be better to look at aggregate costs. Here is a WHO tracking per capita.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...high_desc=true

[Oerets]

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