Post #431,348
10/21/19 4:12:36 PM
10/21/19 4:12:36 PM
|
As IF anyone needs another reason to oppose "Mayor Pete".
This ought to do it. You can bet your last nickel that anything the world's richest sociopath recommends is something you shouldn't support. And, on another note, I wish someone, hell, anyone would point out to the little bastard that all he's really accomplishing with his cute little attacks on an American NHS like this one: Revisiting an attack from his performance in last week’s debate in Ohio, Buttigieg told CNN’s State of the Union: “We need to see how [Medicare for All] is going to be paid for. Right now, whether you copy-paste the Bernie Sanders math or do it some other way, there is a hole amounting to trillions of dollars in how this is supposed to work. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/21/pete-buttigieg-iowa-poll-joe-biden-elizabeth-warrenIs that he's highlighting the fact that he is a little corporate toady. Even the Koch Brothers think tank pointed out that Sanders' plan (which is largely what Warren's talking about) is Two Trillion cheaper over ten years than the current system. The question is not, "How can we afford this?" but, "How can we afford not to implement such a system?" If the little runt ever comes to take questions around here, I'll do my damnedest to ask him.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #431,377
10/22/19 5:21:24 PM
10/22/19 5:21:24 PM
|
You must be reading Russian trolls again.
Even if the Koch Brothers think tank points were true, the *revolutionary*, one big step health care approach can easily be beaten at the voting booth by tRump and his supporters. It can easily be labelled a socialist if not communist approach. Charged words that most don't even understand and a situation were people vote against their own interest. If you think having *no choice* and to *lose* good corporate paid for health insurance can't be put in a bad light you have sad lesson coming. That's 150 million people to convince to take a leap of faith.
The purpose of message you relay is to divide the Democrats and to ensure the left most candidates represent Democrats in the next election. Also, to vote 3rd party if it's not Bernie or Elizabeth. You now what that does. I will vote for any of them, but both Bernie and Elizabeth can be beaten. All you have to look at is how far (enough to get impeached) tRump has gone to find a path to beat Biden to see who worries him. Pete and Amy are the other moderate choices.
The Public Option approach to health care can lead to Medicare for All over time if it is shown to be efficient and effective.
Once again. "The perfect id the enemy of the good!"
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #431,384
10/23/19 9:16:36 AM
10/24/19 8:35:39 AM
|
I used to think the Public Option was a decent compromise.
But I now recognize it is horribly flawed. Three points: (1) If I learned anything from my five years in the health insurance industry it is that the business is all about risk management. With everyone in, no one out, the risk is diluted as far as it can be. Anything short of that will be insufficient. (2) All Americans already love single payer - when they turn 65 or when they're poor. For some years now, over half of all medical claims have been paid for by government (through Medicare and Medicaid). All one needs do is look at the public reaction when Republicans tried to cut Medicare and Medicaid, particularly Medicaid's expansion to see how Americans feel about single payer health insurance. (3) Continuing to allow profiteers (read: private health insurance companies and their shareholders) to divert money paid for healthcare into their own bloated pockets is simply unsustainable. Median household income is $59,000. The average annual cost of private health insurance (including deductibles) is over $22,000, about 38% of median household income. No one's proposing this, but taxing the middle class at 20% for health insurance would mean an 18% raise for median households. "Incremental changes" are just fine for those of us fortunate enough to have had high salaries for a number of years, but for the bottom 80%, not so much. The worst part of "Public Option" is that it allows an immoral, corrupt, dysfunctional system to continue and there will continue to be fellow citizens who must go without or worse, face financial disaster because a family member became ill. Any solution that includes allowing the for-profit private health insurance industry to continue is indefensible. Edit: sp.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
Edited by mmoffitt
Oct. 24, 2019, 08:35:39 AM EDT
|
Post #431,391
10/23/19 2:27:58 PM
10/23/19 2:27:58 PM
|
Saddest-of-all: those who most need to comprehend what you said ..CAN'T. (Or too feckless to try)
|
Post #431,393
10/23/19 5:50:46 PM
10/23/19 5:50:46 PM
|
Public Option needs to be along the path to single payer.
You need to make the Public Option the choice of employers offering health coverage instead of the profiteering health industry coverage. There's way fewer employers then employees to convince that will work for them.
The employers may need some extra coverage for the platinum parts above the basic Public Option coverage for some.
But, I agree, over time, the obscene profits made by the health industry need to end.
And, we haven't even started discussing the drug manufacturing and distribution (including drug store) industries.
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #431,398
10/24/19 9:09:41 AM
10/24/19 9:09:41 AM
|
And we haven't discussed the moral imperative either.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #431,394
10/23/19 8:08:14 PM
10/23/19 8:08:14 PM
|
Don't conflate median and mean, it makes you sound dishonest
|
Post #431,397
10/24/19 8:26:32 AM
10/24/19 8:26:32 AM
|
If you can find a reported median for health insurance, please share.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #431,399
10/24/19 9:32:50 AM
10/24/19 9:32:50 AM
|
And, au contraire, mon frere.
The top 1% get over 20% of all income and the three richest people in the US have more wealth than the bottom 50%. While it is true that I could have used "mean income" instead of "median income" in my argument for the sake of consistency as those numbers are available, with our highly skewed income, "mean" household income doesn't mean anything and it would be dishonest to use "mean income" to submit a view on this topic contrary to my own.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #431,416
10/24/19 7:18:07 PM
10/24/19 7:18:07 PM
|
You stand behind this math?
Median household income is $59,000. The average annual cost of private health insurance (including deductibles) is over $22,000, about 38% of median household income. No one's proposing this, but taxing the middle class at 20% for health insurance would mean an 18% raise for median households. That's not remotely true.
|
Post #431,417
10/24/19 9:41:09 PM
10/24/19 9:42:21 PM
|
not only that the corporations would get a hyarge cut as well! 38-20=18
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Edited by boxley
Oct. 24, 2019, 09:42:21 PM EDT
|
Post #431,423
10/25/19 3:22:37 AM
10/25/19 3:22:37 AM
|
Why not remotely true?
Because the annual cost of private health insurance is represented by an average in stead of a median? Shouldn't be so bad; surely that cost must be much more evenly distributed than income?
Or is it the arithmetic of the "18% raise for median households"? Why? Looks legit to me, at first glance. Hmm... Depends on whether that's gross or net; pre- or post-tax income. And pre-or post-health insurance. And what's that "deductibles", exactly? But still; if the 59K is pre-tax (how these things are usually reported in the Nordic countries), and the 22K comes out of the net after tax... But, wait, the 20% tax (increase) would be on pre-tax income (=those 59K?)...
Duh, I'm too tired for this right now (lack of sleep; bit stressy at work lately). But AFAICS whether that calculation is correct depends on a) the definitions mentioned in the previous paragraph, and b) the tax rate. For all I can see, the effect could be both lower and even higher than +18% on net (post-[tax & health insurance]) income.
--
Christian R. Conrad The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking EverythingMail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
|
Post #431,425
10/25/19 7:34:23 AM
10/25/19 7:34:23 AM
|
Ok
First, according to the CDC, during 2015 health expenditures per-person were nearly $10,000 on average. How do we get to an "average cost with deductibles" of more than twice that? Because most people usually don't max out their deductibles. But even without considering the deductibles, that's just how median and average work when the upside potential is a large multiple of the average. A few people with million-dollar cancer treatments pushes the average up a ton. If we passed that hypothetical 20% tax, but made it across the board, our median person would pay a bit under $12k, so about 20% more than today. But the working poor (who have insurance) would potentially see large savings, and the rich would pay substantially more. Obviously the devil is in the details, but even at a first pass there's no way a 20% tax would mean an 18% raise.
|
Post #431,426
10/25/19 7:52:39 AM
10/25/19 8:36:14 AM
|
I think that is the total cost of a policy
$22k is what was just reported as the combined total of employer + employee contributions for my current policy.
(In Belgium the entire healthcare operation plus a good chunk of the general social safety net is funded by a 15.3% payroll tax, split 50/50 between employee and employer. There are no waiting lists for regular care [long term care is something else] and the quality is second to none. There is definitely room for improvement here. Unfortunately, the industry, pharma in particular, is exporting the US business model worldwide and with right wingers in control almost everywhere, the system is under intense pressure.)
[Mental tyop. It is 2 x 7.65%, not 2 x 6.57% ...]
Edited by scoenye
Oct. 25, 2019, 08:36:14 AM EDT
|
Post #431,428
10/25/19 8:19:37 AM
10/25/19 8:19:37 AM
|
See my source link for the math.
In the end, I don't really care. America is getting exactly the shitty healthcare system it so richly deserves. Morons. So crack on with your hand-waving.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #431,431
10/25/19 9:31:09 AM
10/25/19 9:31:09 AM
|
Show your work
I checked at your link, nowhere does it list $22k. How do you get to that number?
|
Post #431,433
10/25/19 9:47:48 AM
10/25/19 9:47:48 AM
|
what is the cost of your policy? your cost plus the company?
mine is around 20k that doesnt include my high deductables, that is out of pocket for me and the company
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #431,435
10/25/19 12:25:50 PM
10/25/19 12:30:14 PM
|
Read with comprehension much?
I didn't think so. Check the chart "Average monthly premiums for family coverage" (Hint: 1168.00 x 12 = 14,016) Now look at the chart titled "Average annual deductible for family coverage" (Hint: 8803.00) The rest I'll leave as an exercise. If you still have trouble figuring out where I came up with "over 22,000", well, there's not much that can be done to help you is there? Edit: As a bonus, hand wave around this, too. With an individual family plan you may have to meet two deductibles: an individual deductible and a family deductible. This is not true for all plans though, so make sure to check your plan details before buying and make sure you understand how these two deductibles work. Edit: tpyos.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
Edited by mmoffitt
Oct. 25, 2019, 12:26:47 PM EDT
Edited by mmoffitt
Oct. 25, 2019, 12:27:54 PM EDT
Edited by mmoffitt
Oct. 25, 2019, 12:30:14 PM EDT
|
Post #431,437
10/25/19 3:09:33 PM
10/25/19 3:09:33 PM
|
That's what I meant by "show your work". Now I know what you're actually claiming.
And it's like I thought when I explained to CRC: You're adding the premium to the deductible and calling that the "cost". And like I assumed there (and have now confirmed) most people never reach the deductible. You added up two figures that are both technically correct for what they measure and called that the average, though there are very few people who actually pay that total. Then you took your "average" figure and plugged it into a formula with a median figure and made a claim based on the result. And when I called you on it you admitted you don't really care. I agree with your actual point that our healthcare system and the way we pay for it are a mess. All I'm saying is when you use bad math to support it you're giving more ammunition to the other side than to your own.
|
Post #431,458
10/28/19 8:26:30 AM
10/28/19 8:26:30 AM
|
Orange v. Apple.
Single Payer/Medicare for All covers all medical claims by everyone with no additional monies to be paid by patients. You're saying that all medical claims could be paid using the current system with no additional payments in the form of Co-Pay, Co-Insurance and/or Deductibles with the current system. Got it.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #431,459
10/28/19 8:41:20 AM
10/28/19 8:41:20 AM
|
No, I'm saying *show* *your* *math*
|
Post #431,461
10/28/19 9:18:10 AM
10/28/19 9:18:51 AM
|
I did and the comparisons are valid.
YOU want to compare the partial cost of a healthcare delivery system that partially covers illness to a comprehensive healthcare delivery system. I know that, being an American, it's difficult for you to imagine a comprehensive healthcare delivery system, but believe me, such do exist. Maybe use your passport a little more often.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
Edited by mmoffitt
Oct. 28, 2019, 09:18:51 AM EDT
|
Post #431,464
10/28/19 1:15:25 PM
10/28/19 1:15:25 PM
|
You did not
Remember this?
"during 2015 health expenditures per-person were nearly $10,000 on average." That's total expenditures, not premium + deductible. That's how much we actually spend per-person.
Today there are lots of uninsured people. If we offer universal care, money for those people comes from somewhere. What's the story you tell to opponents for where that comes from?
This time, instead of accusing me of not wanting universal coverage, or of being too stupid or provincial to think it's possible, how about you try actually answering the question?
|
Post #431,452
10/27/19 9:15:29 AM
10/27/19 9:15:29 AM
|
Thanks, pretty much got it now (I think).
And yeah, the Moff is letting his red-hot Commie rage run away with him. Fudgy maths are NOT good, even -- perhaps esepcially -- for a good cause. (Maybe you should buy yourself a soothing Red Edition laptop, Mike?)
--
Christian R. Conrad The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking EverythingMail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
|