The price tag on universal health care is in

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 25, 2017.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html

    problem I see here is.
    WHY would CO's offer insurance IF the state covers you? just like with ocluless care your programs will simply be terminated or not offered anymore by either your employer OR the insurance CO itself.
     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
    That whooshing sound once passed will be the sound of illegals running into Cali.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    ....because the wealthy/well enough off always prefer to get additional benefits via insurance even in countries with universal healthcare. It's the difference between sharing a hospital room with one or two others (state run) and having a private room with better food/amenities.

    Do you really not know this?
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    the amount of wealthy/well enough does NOT include the majority of CA citizens currently covered by employers insurance..........many of the CO's who NOW offer insurance would stop offering it.
     
  5. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #5
    so you expect your employer to cut you off as soon as the law allows him to?
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    actually yes. there is a strike going on right now on verizon so it's hard to find the link to Verizon dropping insurance thanks to o-clueless care .
     
  7. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #7
    If you jacked up your property tax rates to that of IL you'd be able to pay for it. ;) Good luck with that!

    They should just offer open enrollment to all of Mexico, central, and South America?
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Good, imagine how much of an economic boom we'd get in the country with universal healthcare. Healthcare costs are the #1 driver of bankruptcy for individuals, are a major impediment to opening a business in the first place, and are the reason Toyota opened a plant in Canada instead of the USA.

    Let's get to universal healthcare country wide and watch as that burden gets removed from business. I'd think even conservatives (if they aren't just so because of tribalism) would support a system the removes the shackles of absurd healthcare costs from the business because the society itself is covering it, no?
     
  9. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #9

    The costs are in. What are the costs of not providing universal health care? As they say, you're doomed if you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
     
  10. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #10
    Healthcare wasn't mandated to be offered until Uncle O care. So the solution to government caused problem is more government intervention?
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    er, try one state at a time, it's a shame our GOVT can screw up a wet dream and the VA is pretty much what is envisioned when these things start to grow interest. how are we going to pay for this? how much more in taxes?
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/toyota-moving-northward.html?_r=0

    The chose a country with a universal healthcare system. This was 2005 (and prices have only shot up further since then), get your ACA crap out of here as it had nothing to do with the decision by Toyota (where were the ones who explicitly said healthcare costs in the US were the reason) to not open in the US.
    --- Post Merged, May 25, 2017 ---
    One state at a time simply won't work. Economics dictates you have a large enough pool to spread the risk, by definition prices are driven down by having a bigger pool to negotiate with.

    The VA has never been adequately funded, ever. Stop conflating **** because I know you're smarter than that.
     
  13. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    how are we going to "adequately fund" this? nation wide going for this is just NOT going to happen buddy.
     
  14. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #14
    A lot....

    Germany has a great healthcare system, but they pay for it in taxes (19% VAT and up to 45% income). So, be prepared to pay for it.

    Oh, and their doctors here don't get rich and the hospitals aren't a place to be comfortable.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    Jk, sometimes I worry about you. I really do. You're capable of critical thinking, you've shown that, yet far too often you demand to be spoonfed answers that have existed in most of the world for well over 50 years.

    US taxpayers would SAVE money by switching to universal single payer healthcare. Medicare has a roughly 2% overhead, the ACA essentially guaranteed insurance companies can get up to 20% of user fees as pure profit (it mandated 80% of premiums go to services, leaving the rest to be pocketed if an insurance company wanted to keep it...we all know how they work). So let's switch to a system that isn't centered around profiteering.
     
  16. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #16
    So it would cost $200b per year. Right?

    As the article said, $100b is already spent on private insurance by employers. So a net-zero identical tax on employers raises $100b right off the bat, as they wouldn't need to spend it on private insurance if there is single-payer.

    California has about 40m people living in it. So the remainder would cost people $2,500 per year. That is cheap! That's probably about the same cost Californian's spend on health insurance premiums anyway.

    So the news is: single-payer costs about the same as private insurance, but covers a lot more people. How is this controversial?
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    ....they also aren't spending on private insurance.

    If you were honest about it, insurance costs are a tax, but a private tax.
     
  18. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    2500 per year per person sounds pretty scary to those of limited income........
    feed me , yeah baby.
     
  19. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #19
    It's quite relevant. Toyota chose the government "paid" healthcare vs the government mandated companies pay for it healthcare.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    Yea...they're already paying more than that in a private tax to insurance corporations already.

    I don't understand why Americans are so willing to overlook being raped via private taxes for a service that would be less if we use the combined purchasing power of the entire population for leverage.
     
  21. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    It's single-payer. The cost can, and should, be progressive based on income level. Obviously babies and old people aren't going to have to write checks for $2.5k, and obviously the many many wealthy people will write checks for $10k.

    $2,500 average cost to an individual to insurance individuals for a year is really small. Even factoring in the employer part, $5,000 per year expenditure is really small. Put this in perspective: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP?year_high_desc=true
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    Yes....because one of those puts the cost on the company (guess which one). Why do you hate companies so much?
     
  23. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #23
    Yes. Many companies dropped coverage after Obamacare and the exchanges came online.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
  25. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #25

Share This Page