4 ms·

With the efficiency savings from a nationalised entity 2-3x is a stretch, yes people will probably pay more tax, that tax will be significantly lower than what

by xs83 8y ago

With the efficiency savings from a nationalised entity 2-3x is a stretch, yes people will probably pay more tax, that tax will be significantly lower than what they probably pay for private medical care. It removes the onus on Employers to provide medical care as a "requirement", it provides people who cant afford medical care a choice of treatment rather than just 'dying'.

malandrew 8y ago
Since when does nationalizing anything make it more efficient? Even assuming the best case scenario where something is more efficient at the time it was created, you still end up with something that not only doesn't become more efficient with time, it often becomes less efficient with time when it's government-run.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  It’s clear we can only go up from the dumpster fire that is privatized US healthcare, and other nations have proven nationalization to be effective. If you have a problem with the effectiveness of government, run for office or find a government job instead of complaining.
- xs83 8y ago
  Efficiency maybe not - but at least it is not run for the benefit of shareholders - that only ever means increasing prices. Look at the UK rail system - it's a farce!
basementcat 8y ago
For older people with more medical issues, the tax will be lower than paying for private medical care. For younger people it will be a tougher sell. Also, don't underestimate the political power of those who are accustomed to the "freedom" of not having insurance and just going to the emergency room when they get hurt. Nationalized health care will also have to grapple with freedom of religion. Does Medicare pay extra money for specialized operations so that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to get blood transfusions? Does Medicare not cover certain medical treatments or procedures to ensure certain religious constituencies don't have their hard earned tax dollars paying for "sinful" activities?
- viraptor 8y ago
  > For younger people it will be a tougher sell. How about: You know how you're considering if checking out X is worth the money you'd pay? Now you can just do that and potentially save money on handling a severe problem later on.
- tfehring 8y ago
  Younger people, with the possible exception of the highest-earning younger people, would likely benefit from Medicare for All. Currently, coverage for older and unhealthy people is cross-subsidized by younger and healthier people, due to the ACA's 3:1 age band and "adjusted community rating" respectively. It's unlikely that Medicare for All or any other broad public insurance program would be paid for by taxes on younger people specifically. More likely, instead of older and unhealthy people's insurance being cross-subsidized by younger people, it will be subsidized by high-earning and/or wealthy people. I agree that freedom of religion makes things tricky. In fact, I'd broaden it to freedom of choice in general. Should we tax obese people because we don't want to subsidize their poor health decisions? What about smokers? How many times should we pay for expensive rehab facilities for drug addicts who repeatedly relapse? How long should we pay for comatose, vegetative patients to occupy hospital beds? But for what it's worth, all of these decisions are already being made (to the extent that regulation allows) by private insurers, and while they'll be tricky regardless, I'd rather have them made by the government than by the private sector.
- xs83 8y ago
  It occurs to me just how much the US has poisoned its citizens against a national medicare type system. You know - no one in the UK even thinks - "Well I am paying more in taxes to treat old people", we all realise that at some point we will all be there and not having to worry about it or maintaining it or being excluded from something certainly makes everything a whole lot less stressful! Likewise I don't even think about how much I am paying for Midwifery, Anti Natal, Pediatric services etc - I understand that different people have different needs and that everyone should get a fair shot at getting what they need.
tracker1 8y ago
Short of DRAMATIC curbs to IP (specifically prescription patents) and negotiation processes, again for prescriptions, we'll wind up paying SO MUCH MORE, Like England. Many Doctors will go private pay only like Canada. I'm not saying it's great, what we have now... but I know how the political process works in this country, something more efficient is just plain very unlikely to happen and will likely make things worse. Obamacare saw me paying about 3X for insurance premiums, or 5-6X for the max out of pocket. (actually chose a combination of both after the first couple years). Do you really think any more changes will make it better?
- objektif 8y ago
  what do you mean by we will pay more than UK? Comparing medicare for all to Obamacare makes no sense.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    I'm not talking an Obamacare plan... I'm talking a generalized plan. Also, there is no way the US Government (Congress) could pass a universal healthcare without the kind of crap that was in Obamacare.
- tfehring 8y ago
  What do you mean, "Like England"? Healthcare in the UK is substantially cheaper than healthcare in the US. In fact, the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK government does, despite the fact that most healthcare spending in the US comes from the private sector. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42950587 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42950587
  - tracker1 8y ago
    In any case, pricing needs to be negotiated very differently than it currently is regarding medicare prescription costs, which are iirc disadvantaged compared to insurance corporations. > "Since 2010 the prescription charge has risen by 26 per cent compared to a rise in average earnings of 16 per cent over the same period. Working age people with long term conditions simply can’t sustain this." https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/nhs-prescription-costs-set-rise-14032341 https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/nhs-prescription-costs-set-ri...

by xs83 8y ago

malandrew 8y ago

Since when does nationalizing anything make it more efficient? Even assuming the best case scenario where something is more efficient at the time it was created, you still end up with something that not only doesn't become more efficient with time, it often becomes less efficient with time when it's government-run.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
It’s clear we can only go up from the dumpster fire that is privatized US healthcare, and other nations have proven nationalization to be effective. If you have a problem with the effectiveness of government, run for office or find a government job instead of complaining.
xs83 8y ago
Efficiency maybe not - but at least it is not run for the benefit of shareholders - that only ever means increasing prices. Look at the UK rail system - it's a farce!

basementcat 8y ago

For older people with more medical issues, the tax will be lower than paying for private medical care. For younger people it will be a tougher sell. Also, don't underestimate the political power of those who are accustomed to the "freedom" of not having insurance and just going to the emergency room when they get hurt. Nationalized health care will also have to grapple with freedom of religion. Does Medicare pay extra money for specialized operations so that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to get blood transfusions? Does Medicare not cover certain medical treatments or procedures to ensure certain religious constituencies don't have their hard earned tax dollars paying for "sinful" activities?

viraptor 8y ago
> For younger people it will be a tougher sell. How about: You know how you're considering if checking out X is worth the money you'd pay? Now you can just do that and potentially save money on handling a severe problem later on.
tfehring 8y ago
Younger people, with the possible exception of the highest-earning younger people, would likely benefit from Medicare for All. Currently, coverage for older and unhealthy people is cross-subsidized by younger and healthier people, due to the ACA's 3:1 age band and "adjusted community rating" respectively. It's unlikely that Medicare for All or any other broad public insurance program would be paid for by taxes on younger people specifically. More likely, instead of older and unhealthy people's insurance being cross-subsidized by younger people, it will be subsidized by high-earning and/or wealthy people. I agree that freedom of religion makes things tricky. In fact, I'd broaden it to freedom of choice in general. Should we tax obese people because we don't want to subsidize their poor health decisions? What about smokers? How many times should we pay for expensive rehab facilities for drug addicts who repeatedly relapse? How long should we pay for comatose, vegetative patients to occupy hospital beds? But for what it's worth, all of these decisions are already being made (to the extent that regulation allows) by private insurers, and while they'll be tricky regardless, I'd rather have them made by the government than by the private sector.
xs83 8y ago
It occurs to me just how much the US has poisoned its citizens against a national medicare type system. You know - no one in the UK even thinks - "Well I am paying more in taxes to treat old people", we all realise that at some point we will all be there and not having to worry about it or maintaining it or being excluded from something certainly makes everything a whole lot less stressful! Likewise I don't even think about how much I am paying for Midwifery, Anti Natal, Pediatric services etc - I understand that different people have different needs and that everyone should get a fair shot at getting what they need.

tracker1 8y ago

Short of DRAMATIC curbs to IP (specifically prescription patents) and negotiation processes, again for prescriptions, we'll wind up paying SO MUCH MORE, Like England. Many Doctors will go private pay only like Canada. I'm not saying it's great, what we have now... but I know how the political process works in this country, something more efficient is just plain very unlikely to happen and will likely make things worse. Obamacare saw me paying about 3X for insurance premiums, or 5-6X for the max out of pocket. (actually chose a combination of both after the first couple years). Do you really think any more changes will make it better?

objektif 8y ago
what do you mean by we will pay more than UK? Comparing medicare for all to Obamacare makes no sense.
- tracker1 8y ago
  I'm not talking an Obamacare plan... I'm talking a generalized plan. Also, there is no way the US Government (Congress) could pass a universal healthcare without the kind of crap that was in Obamacare.
tfehring 8y ago
What do you mean, "Like England"? Healthcare in the UK is substantially cheaper than healthcare in the US. In fact, the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK government does, despite the fact that most healthcare spending in the US comes from the private sector. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42950587 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42950587
- tracker1 8y ago
  In any case, pricing needs to be negotiated very differently than it currently is regarding medicare prescription costs, which are iirc disadvantaged compared to insurance corporations. > "Since 2010 the prescription charge has risen by 26 per cent compared to a rise in average earnings of 16 per cent over the same period. Working age people with long term conditions simply can’t sustain this." https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/nhs-prescription-costs-set-rise-14032341 https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/nhs-prescription-costs-set-ri...