Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2016, 09:01 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Government run healthcare is unlikely to cost me less, in fact individuals such as myself would likely have to pay more, as has already occurred after the affordable care act.

(17-05-2016 08:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I support the ACA, and I'm a registered democrat, who likes Obama.

Funny that.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 09:01 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 08:57 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And that wouldn't happen, given your situation, you'll likely be receiving Medicare, and kept alive for as long as possible.

Yeah I doubt it. It costs 60.000 USD per month to keep me alive.

And yes, the government would be footing the bill for you, i.e Medicare.

If you had private coverage under the ACA legislation, private insurers, would have catastrophic coverages in place, footed by the government as well, when your cost exceeds a certain threshold.

The likelyhood of you getting cutoff, in our current system, is almost next to none.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 09:06 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 09:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 08:57 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Yeah I doubt it. It costs 60.000 USD per month to keep me alive.

And yes, the government would be footing the bill for you, i.e Medicare.

If you had private coverage under the ACA legislation, private insurers, would have catastrophic coverages in place, footed by the government as well, when your cost exceeds a certain threshold.

The likelyhood of you getting cutoff, in our current system, is almost next to none.

Let's drop it T. I'm a freakin' mess mate.

It is a different topic anyway and it resembles the gun debate.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
17-05-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 08:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 07:49 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The ACA has nothing to do with single payer. It was a bandage on a gunshot wound. Single payer is cheaper, that's not up for debate it is a simple fact.

In terms of overall healthcare cost, sure, and particularly benefitting the uninsured extremely sick, and self-insured. But not in regards to what many employees with decent jobs, are paying currently.

Quote:The for profit health care model of the US is an abysmal failure that only benefits the insurance companies.

Which is a myth. The high cost of healthcare, is not because of profit margins of insurers, which contrary to proper belief isn't the direct result of your premium payments, which in and of themselves leave very little beyond covering operating expenses, and the cost of their risk pools. Insurance companies primarily make money by investing your premium payments. But dissolving the profit incentives of insurers would do next to nothing for the overall cost of healthcare.

It's the cost of care that drives our healthcare cost, the cost of meds, the cost providers charge for a variety of services, etc...... In our current systems these prices are reduced almost exclusively by the insurer creating large enough pools to negotiate lower prices.

Drug companies make considerable more money in the American market, than in countries with a single payor system, but this also means that a great deal of money they invest in R&D, to find the next breakthrough, are driven considerably by the amount America more so than other countries pay towards them. In a lot of ways Americans are subsidizing this aspect for the rest of the world.

Regardless, while I'm all far a single payor system, once someone can offer a model that's economically feasible, and aware of the variety of negative consequences, given a nation as large and devise as the American population. But it would be a lie to suggest that individuals such as myself would be paying less overall all for it, then I'm currently paying, where I'd be subsidizing more than quarter of a million people.

There's a reason why Bernie Sander's desire to emulate the Norway model, is deemed as economically disastrous by most economist, and it's not partisanship.

Quote:You pay $100 how much does your employer cover? Wouldn't you rather pay the same $100 in taxes and get the employer contribution as salary?

Sure I would, it just wouldn't happen, because there's no free lunch. What you'll primarily be doing is shifting those amount from a category designated as for healthcare cost, lumped into my portion of federal taxes instead. And will likely cost me as an employer more, than previously. There's not much of an economic incentive to support a single payor system, though there possibly is a moral one.

The overhead costs for health care delivery in the U.S. exceed 25% while single-payer systems' overhead is typically less than 10%.

Do you know where that overhead money is going? To insurance companies.

Other countries have just as sophisticated medical care, they do it at lower cost.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
17-05-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 09:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 08:57 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Yeah I doubt it. It costs 60.000 USD per month to keep me alive.

And yes, the government would be footing the bill for you, i.e Medicare.

No, it is not.

A worker in the U.S. pays a Medicare tax his entire working life without receiving any benefit for decades.
We pay for Medicare.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-05-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  The overhead costs for health care delivery in the U.S. exceed 25% while single-payer systems' overhead is typically less than 10%.

Do you know where that overhead money is going? To insurance companies.

The overhead cost of any particular insurer, is dependent on the size of the group being covered. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "administrative costs were about 7 percent for employers with at least 1,000 employees" and about 26 percent for firms with 25 or fewer employees.

In fact "the averages cited by CBO and CMS are significantly lower -- 11 percent to 12 percent -- and many of the bigger plans undercut even that level."

US medicare administrative cost are often estimated to be a lot lower, than this at 3%, but much of this has to do with unique factors of medicare, such as tax exceptions, and their insured population being sicker in general.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...lower-pri/

Quote:Other countries have just as sophisticated medical care, they do it at lower cost.

And these lower cost are product of a variety of factors, more healthy populations, the ability of a single payor system's to dictate drug prices, and etc.., but almost little to do with reducing administrative cost, which at best would reduce the cost by small fraction in a single payor system.

The reality of healthcare cost in America, is that 5% of our population, the sickest amongst us, take up 50% of our healthcare cost. And drugs, and a variety of different treatments are far more costly in the US than in other countries, which single payor countries benefit a great deal from. The R&D budgets of big pharm, researching the next breakthrough treatments, is disproprtionality funded by what Americans pay for medications, as opposed to other countries.

Reducing American drug cost in a single payor system, to the level of other single payor systems, would mean a significant amount of money spent on R&D by these private companies, would also be cut, with considerably less incentive to do so than in our current systems.

There's a variety of problems, a variety of considerations, that makes the issue a bit more complex, than believing that modeling our health care system, off of countries a fraction of our size, with different cultures, political systems, etc.... would work just as well here.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 11:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  The overhead costs for health care delivery in the U.S. exceed 25% while single-payer systems' overhead is typically less than 10%.

Do you know where that overhead money is going? To insurance companies.

The overhead cost of any particular insurer, is dependent on the size of the group being covered. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "administrative costs were about 7 percent for employers with at least 1,000 employees" and about 26 percent for firms with 25 or fewer employees.

In fact "the averages cited by CBO and CMS are significantly lower -- 11 percent to 12 percent -- and many of the bigger plans undercut even that level."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...-companies

Quote:US medicare administrative cost are often estimated to be a lot lower, than this at 3%, but much of this has to do with unique factors of medicare, such as tax exceptions, and their insured population being sicker in general.

Or is it because Medicare is a single-payer system?

Quote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...lower-pri/

Quote:Other countries have just as sophisticated medical care, they do it at lower cost.

And these lower cost are product of a variety of factors, more healthy populations, the ability of a single payor system's to dictate drug prices, and etc.., but almost little to do with reducing administrative cost, which at best would reduce the cost by small fraction in a single payor system.

The reality of healthcare cost in America, is that 5% of our population, the sickest amongst us, take up 50% of our healthcare cost. And drugs, and a variety of different treatments are far more costly in the US than in other countries, which single payor countries benefit a great deal from. The R&D budgets of big pharm, researching the next breakthrough treatments, is disproprtionality funded by what Americans pay for medications, as opposed to other countries.

Reducing American drug cost in a single payor system, to the level of other single payor systems, would mean a significant amount of money spent on R&D by these private companies, would also be cut, with considerably less incentive to do so than in our current systems.

There's a variety of problems, a variety of considerations, that makes the issue a bit more complex, than believing that modeling our health care system, off of countries a fraction of our size, with different cultures, political systems, etc.... would work just as well here.

The size of the country has exactly what to do with the issue? There is no reason to believe that single-payer insurance does not scale.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 11:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...-companies

Your Bloomberg article cites a study from 1991, and another one 10 years later, though the link to second study is dead. If the numbers are accurate, it would still be considerably outdate. The CBO figures are from 2008. It should also be noted that I cited a politifact, which rated Barbara Boxer citing a figure aligned with what you earlier suggested, as not true.


Quote:US medicare administrative cost are often estimated to be a lot lower, than this at 3%, but much of this has to do with unique factors of medicare, such as tax exceptions, and their insured population being sicker in general.

Or is it because Medicare is a single-payer system?

Quote:Perhaps marginally, even according to you other countries with single payor systems, still have a 10% overheard cost, comparable to private insurers in the CBO figures. It goes without saying that an insurer doesn't necessarily pay more more in administrative cost for sicker patients, than healthier patients, but the percentage of administrative cost, as portion of the overall healthcare cost of patient, would be lower for the sicker patient, than for the healthier patients.

But I don't doubt that a single payer system would lower administrative cost overall, because of a gigantic insurance pool, but at best maybe 2-3% less, as a generous estimate. And this would have very little impact on our overall healthcare cost.

[quote]The size of the country has exactly what to do with the issue? There is no reason to believe that single-payer insurance does not scale.

A dramatic overall of a system the governs 300 million people, needs considerable more support than it works for a country with a population of a fraction of that size. Bernie purposes such an idea, modeling America on the Norway model, but his number's don't add up, and most economist running his numbers, recognize that it would likely have devastating effects. And in our particular global economic climate, it's quite a risky bet.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(10-05-2016 03:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 11:58 AM)SYZ Wrote:  These are the only "Americans" I hate.....
Am I missing something?
You hate Americans who are proud Muslims and willing to hold a sign saying that they are Muslim Americans?

Quote:How do you feel about Americans who are proud Christians and willing to hold a sign saying that they are Christian Americans?
If you'd like to post an image of this, I'm happy to comment further.


This gaggle of oppressed Muslim females is only typical of the prospective Islamification of parts of the US (and the rest of the Western world). They're not promoting America; they're promoting Islam. If they're genuinely proud Americans, why then are they wearing hijabs and abayas? Is that normal clothing for female Americans?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Do Other Westerners Really Hate Americans?
(17-05-2016 01:26 PM)SYZ Wrote:  This gaggle of oppressed Muslim females is only typical of the prospective Islamification of parts of the US (and the rest of the Western world). They're not promoting America; they're promoting Islam. If they're genuinely proud Americans, why then are they wearing hijabs and abayas? Is that normal clothing for female Americans?

My aunt wears saris, and Amish women only wear long dresses and skirts, while the men wear funny clothing and hats. Is that normal American clothing to you?

My mother also avoids wearing jewelry and makeup, and has never wore a pair of jeans, though she's an American citizen, has been here for over 30 years. I guess she isn't a normal american woman either.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: