I’m in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
I’m in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The one problem I foresee is you're paying into this balance to get to let's go with what you said, $50,000. You've saved up the $50,000 so you don't have to pay into it anymore but you have to go to the Doctor and it costs $3,000. No problem since you have $50,000, so now you're at $47,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Would you then have to start re-paying to get back up to $50,000? Because if that's the case, depending on how high you make the amount I foresee everybody in a constant cycle of paying that off. The number of people that will actually get to $50,000 is small and even when they do, one healthcare charge triggers them having to go back to paying into it.
It's a unique system, but Government run seems better and actually less costly to people.
I go to the doctor twice a year once for some lady to look at me naked and tell me none of my moles are cancer and once for a general physical. I did get the flu this year so that makes 3 but I might have forgotten about the mole lady in which case I’m still at two. Still I think I would make out under the Scoots systemQuote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably, but the kicker would be if you've ever had any surgeries, ailments, or ambulance trips because those probably set you back so much you'd still be paying off those costs to build your account back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ewing
But beyond that, I still don't know how his plan is cheaper than Universal healthcare. How much comes out of a person's paycheck compared to how much your taxes will increase under such a system.
My thoughts are, it's probably more expensive.
I think that system is essentially paid for by the current government expenses for health care ... single payer will possibly more than double the cost, and I've seen some say quadruple the cost, and do all that while also keeping the health insurance industry alive because people will choose to get private health care to get better care than the single payer system will provide (true, as far as I can tell, in every place where single payer exists).Quote:
Originally Posted by flips333
The downside of my proposal is that it encourages people to not go to the doctor by choice, the downside of single payer is that it discourages people from going to the doctor by making it harder to see a doctor.
The capitalist part would require customer service be a top goal of care providers. Single payer is the opposite.
That said, in both systems the government regulations on health care will have to grow, and as long as legislators can be bought we are screwed.
Yes, you'd have to pay any time you are below the cap. $50k was just a number. But I suspect a lot of people would get to the cap. Lets say you start working at 16, most people have whole decades without needing to go to the doctor. And most doctor visits cost less than $300, and that $300 is in a corrupted system.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Everything I've read says single payer is going to be considerably more expensive that we are already paying.
Taxes should not increase at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
At any rate, thanks for giving it a thought all.
Is she hot?Quote:
Originally Posted by ewing
Like flips said it’s a creative idea. The problem is that in practice it’s a hybrid system for the sake of being hybrid. If I’m sitting on 50k to see the doctor, I’m gonna see the “best” guy who charges ridiculous rates. When I actually get a chronic illness I’ll be out of funds in 10 visits or so and then the government pays for it anyway. Everyone seeks the most expensive care and the government foots the bill completely. In a capitalist system, if most people see a doctor twice a year and the doctors know that every patient is sitting on 50k, then office visits cost 25k. You just end up inflating the overall cost of health care. Single payer works because you create a huge pool of payers and eliminate those that profit by being middle men. Rather than further inflating costs, you regulate them. The government assumes and caps liability by providers, drives down drug costs, etc...It’s not an environment that capitalism can live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
The first time I went, she had a nurse type that was cute. They like walk around you with tablets taking pictures, it’s weirdQuote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powders
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not normal broQuote:
Originally Posted by ewing
I think she was just perving on you
Idk when I go back they do compare what my moles look like in the pictures versus now etc. I have a lot of moles on my back and torso. When they did that I was in underwear. Either way I don’t careQuote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If a doctor says it's $25k for a doctor visit then the consumer says no thanks and finds a doctor who will charge $150. With yelp doctors ratings will all be public so they have to perform.Quote:
Originally Posted by benny01
Oh I didn't realize she was taking pics of your moles..Quote:
Originally Posted by ewing
I think people would be more likely to go to a Doctor under universal healthcare, especially for preventative care because it doesn't cost them anything extra to do that. Under a capitalist (or your) approach, people would be less likely to go because they'd rather keep or save that money (or not have to pay back to the cap once they fall under).Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Hope that's not the case, they should at least be going once a year for an annual physical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
But how much are we talking they have to pay into this fund? I'm just doing some math, and if they paid $150 from each paycheck into the fund (which seems a lot for lower income people but IDK), that would only be $3,600 paid into the account in a year. So it would take them about 13 years to get to the cap of $50,000 (though you admit $50,000 was just an arbitrary number). Even at $20,000, it would take someone 5-6 years to get to $20,000.
I think the fundamental problem with your system is that poor people will forever be paying to get to the account max and therefore will always be paying money. I find it very hard to believe a poor person can pay $150 per paycheck for 6 years to get to $20,000 and cap out to where they don't have to pay, especially when you start having health problems.
What are your thoughts on the fact poor people may be having to pay into your system for their entire lives?
It's definitely a unique system, I think it's better than our current one, though it still suffers from the same problem as all our systems do IMO, that we don't want to fully commit to Universal healthcare so we come up with some hybrid system that's not as effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
As for your repeated claim that everything shows Universal Healthcare will be more expensive, a study funded by the Koch brothers found that it would actually be $2 trillion less over 10 years than our current system (though that was based on assumed costs under Bernie Sanders' plan that the author of the study called unrealistic).
But even beyond that, it seems weird to me that everyone still wants to perpetuate this idea that universal healthcare will be vastly more expensive than our current system when virtually every other industrialized nation that as Universal healthcare pays drastically less than us for it. Are we really so bad compared to our counterparts in other countries we can't figure out what they've all figured out over 50 years ago?