the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

dogs4thewin said:

It is still cheaper IOUs

Click to expand...

Which doctors of course take…

dogs4thewin said:

yes so is it better to be 1k in debt or 10sk in debt.

Click to expand...

Sigh.

BCP1928 said:

You really think many of us old farts are dissatisfied with medicare? Medicare is better than any employer -funded health care I ever had when I was working, and I would have been happy to have it instead.

Why?

Click to expand...

MEDICARE is great. None but MAGA, libertarian and socialist diehards prefer a different system.

I am 100% fine with Medicare for all Americans.
==========
If there are to be insurance companies covering health care, I do believe that regulation should be at the state level so that decision-making can be more local. For example, I could see rural states having higher reimbursement rates for rural hospitals.
==========
So, for me, there are transition steps to having reasonable cost access for all Americans.
1) Romneycare/Obamacare is a first step. And, yes, subsidies are needed, as we knew from the beginning. The question is what percentage and how the subsidies are shared between the feds and the state governments.
2) When this system is more stable, we should move to reduce the level of employer involvement in health insurance. This is primarily a tax issue, starting with reducing the deductions for high-cost insurance options, and eventually not covering employer contributions.
3) The phase-in of Medicare for all is likely to be a slow process. Obviously, Medicare contribution rates would increase for those coming into the system (or those below a certain age) while the age for getting benefits would decease year by year.
4) But let's be clear, taxes need to rise a bit. Consider how well the country did in the 60's and 90's with much higher marginal tax rates. This CANNOT happen politically without a serious reduction in federal government spending though revenue sharing of voluntary social welfare costs and a thorough efficiency improvement in military and federal security processes and spending.

BCP1928 said:

True, but their average wages will increase as well. Alternatively, part of all of that 'average' $21,000 employers are paying now could go directly into the health care fund.

Click to expand...

You're assuming that employers will increase salaries if they don't have to pay employees' insurance premiums.

Some companies may consider this option, but there is no guarantee it will occur, as employers are not obligated to do so. It is possible that certain non-profit organizations would implement such measures if they are not expanding their operations with the savings; however, there is no assurance that for-profit organizations would take similar actions.

dogs4thewin said:

that is why I mentioned the fact that certain conditions CAN develop quickly and thus early treatment is not an option. Then again in cases where it is life or death at a given time you will get treatment enough to get you stable.

Click to expand...

Here are the facts in today’s political environment.

Some Democrats support universal healthcare, but often do not mention that it would require all Americans to pay additional taxes. They frequently reference European models without noting that the average European pays over 35% in taxes.

On the other hand, the Republican party has not put forward a specific health care policy. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have attempted to repeal it 42 times without providing an alternative solution.

Today, many conservatives assert that there is no issue with healthcare costs, suggesting that individuals who experience sudden health problems and cannot afford care are responsible for not seeking medical attention promptly. In other words, some conservatives deny that healthcare affordability is a concern in America.

Democrats may not have the best solution for universal healthcare, but they acknowledge there's a problem to address. Some conservatives, however, remain so opposed that they won't even recognize America's healthcare affordability issue.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

You're assuming that employers will increase salaries if they don't have to pay employees' insurance premiums.

Click to expand...

True - which is why the alternative proposal of diverting that money as a tax was put forward.

Ultimately though, I think most companies would try to keep their employees at a similar net income. Because if they don't, they're going to lose those employees who can't or won't take a pay cut.

7thKeeper said:

How does that compare to the US, if we count the average that a citizen there also pays for healthcare and other things provided by the tax funds for Europe? Also, the figure seems high. IIRC, only 6 countries in Europe on average fall into that category.

Click to expand...

My wife is from Europe, and whenever I speak with my in-laws there, they express satisfaction with higher taxes because they receive government-funded healthcare, education, childcare, and even free public transportation in some cities.

Democratic politicians who support universal health care often do not fully inform the public about the associated costs of providing free health care, education, or child care. This may be because most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are unwilling to accept higher taxes.

The European model may be seen as effective by some, but many Americans prefer not to pay higher taxes. Unless the majority of Americans change their perspective, universal healthcare policies are unlikely to move beyond theoretical discussions. A viable solution would need to gain support from both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Otherwise, the topic of universal healthcare may remain a subject of debate for decades without significant progress.

There is a reason why the Obama administration, when introducing the ACA, did not pursue universal health care or a single-payer system as many liberals advocated. The administration recognized that there was insufficient political support for universal healthcare, so it adopted a model based on more conservative ideas from figures such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Even with this approach, the legislation did not receive any votes from conservative lawmakers.

A prevailing challenge in contemporary American politics is the reluctance of both sides to compromise and the tendency to impose their agendas on one another. While approximately 40% of Americans may support universal healthcare, an equal proportion opposes it; neither group is likely to relent in their convictions. It is essential that we find ways to coexist and develop solutions that garner broad consensus. The answer may not be universal healthcare , nor can we simply maintain the status quo. Persistently advocating for only one perspective is unlikely to yield meaningful progress. Instead, seeking common ground to achieve legislation acceptable to all Americans offers a more constructive path forward.