[QUOTE=try2bfrugal;155802]... The federal government will pick up the tab for three years for Medicaid expansion, and 90% of the cost after that. ....
0% down! low low low monthly payments!
These offers and more huckster financial arrangements can be found on late night tv.
So let's see, I can pay one way or two ways: the feds pay (tax me once) or the states pay in addition (tax me twice.)
Win/win? or tax/tax?
Last edited by iris lily; 10-3-13 at 10:53pm.
Keep in mind, countries with government supported health care have much lower overall health care costs. It is how the rest of the developed world works. Insurance for all and many times over lower health care costs. Win / win.Originally Posted by iris lily
Right now the winners in health care are the drug companies and the "non-profits" who are free to charge whatever they want with little controls. Have you read the Time article Bitter Pill?
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/231...ndAndGreed.pdf
Right now health care in the U.S. is a lose / lose situation for the average tax payer.
"Taken as a whole, these powerful [health care] institutions and the bills they churn out dominate the nation’s economy and put demands on taxpayers to a degree unequaled anywhere else on earth. In the U.S., people spend almost 20% of the gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries.
Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries."
We spend twice the GDP of other countries on health care and yet still have 28 million uninsured. Guess where this money is going now? Hint it isn't the tax payers.
The Medicaid situation in California is so dire that a court case was literally filed to prevent Medicaid cuts and didn't suceed. So much for the plan of throwing everyone on Medicaid being likely to work.
"The 10 percent cuts to reimbursements for services under California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, are set to begin phasing in next month, saving the state $387 million, but leaving many doctors and medical workers worried that there won’t be enough money left to take care of patients or themselves.
The cuts are intended to offset costs of Gov. Jerry Brown’s attempted expansion of Medi-Cal, while will offer Medicaid coverage to patients whose incomes are up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. But in order to keep spending on Medi-Cal under control, the administration hopes is cutting 10 percent off each reimbursement."
http://www.medicaldaily.com/californ...atients-health
"The reductions to providers like Ma will also create a massive glitch in the implementation of national healthcare reform — the cuts to Medi-Cal rates are to occur just as more people prepare to join the program under the Affordable Care Act. Currently 8.3 million poor Californians are covered by Medi-Cal, and more than 1 million new enrollees are expected beginning next year
State officials argue the 10% decrease is necessary to keep healthcare spending under control, but medical providers fear it will devastate an already shrinking workforce and jeopardize patient care.
California has among the lowest Medicaid reimbursement rates in the nation, they say, and the reduction will lead to fewer doctors opting to see those patients. If that happens, California Medical Assn. President Paul Phinney said, many Medi-Cal recipients won't be able to find anyone willing to treat them"
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun...-cuts-20130611
Yea everyone is going to go into Medicaid and happy times. Now it is possible that people exagerate the impacts of this (they all have their vested interests) and it's also quite possible the Medicaid situation could get very ugly in California. How much healthcare are people really going to get? I wouldn't want to be relying on Medicaid is what I'm saying.
Trees don't grow on money
You are assuming a causal relationship between single payer gubmnt health care and low costs. And, it might be true--in other countries. But it may not be true. There are other factors in play there.
I do not believe for one moment that Americans will put up with anything other the the biggest and the best because it is now practically free at least for those who Nanny G has determined can't afford 9.5% of their income to go towards it. The taxpayers will pay for it, subsidize it if nothing else. We must have the total best for everyone, or people like Rob will whine some upper class dude will get better treatment, no matter if the dude has personal cash to pay for more advanced care. We all DESERVE advanced, state of the art care. It's our right. etc etc.
That don't come cheap.
I figure it's mostly true because they crack down hard on excessive pricing. Well since the ACA contains no costs controls .... I also think that's the main problem they'd have implementing single payer here. The major costs centers (hospitals, pharma - and why do we pay several times the cost of medicine here?) will fight it.You are assuming a causal relationship between single payer gubmnt health care and low costs. And, it might be true--in other countries. But it may not be true. There are other factors in play there.
Trees don't grow on money
There are many ways other countries work to constraint health care costs -
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...countries.html
Almost all other developed countries see health care as a basic human right, like police protection and public school education. I understand you don't, that it is better to let lower income people die from treatable diseases like cancer and diabetes than to provide tax payer money to help for care. I don't know what to tell you except that is not the way the world works in other almost all other developed countries, and not how many people in the U.S. want it to work here either.
I think once the ACA is in and people see the benefits, there will be more support -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...macare/280165/
I do agree with you completely on that point. Have you seen the UK version of Breaking Bad? The doctor in the comic says what kind of barbaric society would allow medical care to hinge on a person's wealth? The vast majority of the developed world views health care as basic human right.
Last edited by try2bfrugal; 10-3-13 at 10:08pm.
Spartana, I have often said how much I appreciate your reactions to my posts as you often make me think. Once again you have made me think and BINGO - I think you have a very valid point here. As I have posted elsewhere in these health care threads we have going now, it looks like I will be on Medicaid to start with come January 1st and from what I understand it's going to be a freebie except for extremely minimal copays on visits and meds. Do I like this? Of course. Is it fair? 50/50 on that one. Honestly, I think there should be some kind of work requirement involved, even if it is something akin to volunteering at a food bank 25 hours a week or planting trees somewhere or collecting trash from the side of the road - it is not unfair for some kind of requirement to give something back to society. And this free Medicaid does not require this. LET THE CONSERVATIVES HERE NOT DROP DEAD OF SHOCK! I don't think it's right that since I am able bodied I should be handed this insurance with no strings. In Austria, where my mother's family is from, and a country I dearly wish the US was patterned on, there would be a requirement that I contribute somehow to society to justify the insurance. Even it were just 25 hours a week doing something brainless - some contribution to society somehow. I'm seriously thinking of volunteering at thrift shop at least a day a week to feel OK about having the insurance. Surprise to the conservatives out there! Rob
As do I. Since the age of 12. This is one of the few stances I hold where I will not negotiate. As I have stated before, to me it's not my health care tab, or your health care tab, but OUR health care tab, as I see this as affecting the collective good of society. Rob
[QUOTE=iris lily;155806]This is a big problem right here I have with America and I not blaming you IL. My experience in the US is that many think this way along the lines of what you have posted here.
My issue is thinking in terms of your own pocketbook over the collective good of society. But, people who think this way usually have not been exposed to something along the lines of Western Europe where everyone can tap into the perks at some time or other and there is no stigma involved in doing so. Since everyone can tap in at some point, there is not as much reason to think in terms of your own pocketbook as there is here as tapping in is not quite the same in the US.
I'm going to be 47 in November and I'm realizing how short our lives on this Earth are. This kind of thinking about your pocketbook above most else - is it worth the stress involved? To me the answer is a big NO. YMMV, I get that. Rob
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote