|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 10 2014 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 01:53 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? I don't really get the point you are making. Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve. If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it. Would you care to elaborate? As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government. That has little to do with who pays part of your insurance cost,or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. (For example here in Germany nearly everyone is publicly insured, but employers are still forced to cover half of your insurance cost.)
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
|
On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdf
I don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer.
|
On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:I used to think you might not be as dense as you come off sometimes, but I'm starting to second guess myself.
Single payer pretty much means just that - one payer, typically the government. You can still have private insurance but it won't overlap with what the single payer covers. That differs a lot from a multi-payer system, and its pretty natural to simplify the difference down to "private insurance is gone".
|
On April 10 2014 05:08 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 01:53 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? I don't really get the point you are making. Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve. If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it. Would you care to elaborate? As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government. That has little to do with who pays part of your insurance cost,or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. (For example here in Germany nearly everyone is publicly insured, but employers are still forced to cover half of your insurance cost.) I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
That's true and was the case before WW2 wage controls screwed it up.
|
On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%. Show nested quote +
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer.
Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked....
So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare?
It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems....
|
On April 10 2014 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:08 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 01:53 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? I don't really get the point you are making. Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve. If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it. Would you care to elaborate? As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government. That has little to do with who pays part of your insurance cost,or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. (For example here in Germany nearly everyone is publicly insured, but employers are still forced to cover half of your insurance cost.) I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right? That's true and was the case before WW2 wage controls screwed it up.
Another pointless one-liner from Jonny. *shocked face*
Perhaps you have another article with nothing substantive, evidential, or particularly interesting to say about/from it you could share?
User was warned for this post
|
On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems....
Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic.
|
On April 10 2014 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:08 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 01:53 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? I don't really get the point you are making. Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve. If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it. Would you care to elaborate? As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government. That has little to do with who pays part of your insurance cost,or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. (For example here in Germany nearly everyone is publicly insured, but employers are still forced to cover half of your insurance cost.) I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right? That's true and was the case before WW2 wage controls screwed it up. Another pointless one-liner from Jonny. *shocked face* Perhaps you have another article with nothing substantive, evidential, or particularly interesting to say about/from it you could share?
How was it pointless? I was agreeing with the guy and adding an important historical event to the discussion. The fuck is your deal?
|
On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic.
He said
" As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government."
He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance.
You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house).
You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now?
How was it pointless? I was agreeing with the guy and adding an important historical event to the discussion. The fuck is your deal?
Keep telling yourself that.
|
On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare?
Well yes, if you switch from a free market multi-payer system like the US, in which private spending accounts for well over half of all payments to a system in which the government pays for nearly anything but 10-15% of all spending, then yes, you're basically putting an end to profit oriented private insurance.
Also could you please get rid of your annoying attitude? Having half serious discussions on the internet is hard enough anyway.
|
WASHINGTON -- NASA has some projects in the works when it comes to space exploration, but they're no big deal: Just grabbing an asteroid and throwing it at the moon, sending people to Mars and laying the groundwork for permanent human settlements in the solar system.
"Our architecture is designed for long-term human exploration of our solar system, including the goal of human missions to Mars," William Gerstenmaier, an associate administrator at NASA, said Wednesday during testimony before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space.
The hearing, called "From Here to Mars," focused on intermediate space missions being planned as steps toward long-duration space travel. One possible mission is to a near-Earth asteroid, Gerstenmaier said. Not only is NASA working on sending a manned spacecraft to the asteroid, but then, through the use of robotic technology, scientists are also looking at ways to knock the asteroid -- or possibly a boulder from the asteroid -- into an orbit around the moon to collect samples from it.
Gerstenmaier was clearly excited about that project. He said that while it may not be as flashy as a manned expedition to Mars, it's the kind of mission that gets kids and the public reinvigorated about space exploration and NASA's projects.
"We're going to grab a piece of the solar system, we're going to deflect it around the moon and insert it into a distant retrograde orbit around the moon where our crews can go visit," he said. "To think we're moving a piece of the solar system for our use that will allow us to learn skills and techniques that we need to push the human presence into the solar system, that's a pretty awe-inspiring statement."
Of course, budget cuts mean smaller projects have to play out before asteroid bumping and manned Mars trips, but NASA is hoping to have the Mars trip underway in the 2030s. The agency's near-term plans include using the International Space Station (ISS) for demonstrations aimed at ensuring the safety of crews on long-duration spaceflights, and partnering with the commercial sector for transporting people and cargo to space stations.
Source
|
On April 10 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare?
Well yes, if you switch from a free market multi-payer system like the US, in which private spending accounts for well over half of all payments to a system in which the government pays for nearly anything but 10-15% of all spending, then yes, you're basically putting an end to profit oriented private insurance.
Ok so the premise is that a reduction from lets say ~60% to ~10-25% constitutes an 'end to profit oriented insurance' (not really sure how that's a bad thing but we don't need to go there).
Just curious, how much of the market does private insurance need to keep in order for it to not 'end' in your eyes?
|
On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said Show nested quote +" As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now?
Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding.
The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it 
|
On April 10 2014 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare?
Well yes, if you switch from a free market multi-payer system like the US, in which private spending accounts for well over half of all payments to a system in which the government pays for nearly anything but 10-15% of all spending, then yes, you're basically putting an end to profit oriented private insurance. Ok so the premise is that a reduction from lets say ~60% to ~10-25% constitutes an 'end to profit oriented insurance' ( not really sure how that's a bad thing but we don't need to go there). Just curious how much of the market does private insurance need to keep in order for it to not 'end' in your eyes?
I still don't think it's a bad thing, so I don't know why you're saying that repeatedly. A random number is pretty arbitrary, but I guess it's safe to say that if you'd implement a single-payer system in the US the majority of people would perceive that as a paradigm change that makes the government the major player in paying for healthcare and reduces profit oriented insurances to a marginal group.
|
On April 10 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said " As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now? Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding.
Not sure what you mean by 'as it exists' so I can't agree with that yet.
With rhetoric what it is and voters information being as low as it is in the general discourse, it's a fairly important distinction.
The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it
This just keeps getting funnier and funnier...
|
On April 10 2014 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said " As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now? Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding. Not sure what you mean by 'as it exists' so I can't agree with that yet. With rhetoric what it is and voters information being as low as it is in the general discourse, it's a fairly important distinction.
That's a fair point that the rhetoric can get pretty crappy.
By as it exists I mean that now you rely on insurance for the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer you don't. It becomes an optional add-on rather than the main deal.
edit:Show nested quote +The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it This just keeps getting funnier and funnier...
You should visit the old 'Venus Project' thread
|
On April 10 2014 06:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare?
Well yes, if you switch from a free market multi-payer system like the US, in which private spending accounts for well over half of all payments to a system in which the government pays for nearly anything but 10-15% of all spending, then yes, you're basically putting an end to profit oriented private insurance. Ok so the premise is that a reduction from lets say ~60% to ~10-25% constitutes an 'end to profit oriented insurance' ( not really sure how that's a bad thing but we don't need to go there). Just curious how much of the market does private insurance need to keep in order for it to not 'end' in your eyes? I still don't think it's a bad thing, so I don't know why you're saying that repeatedly. A random number is pretty arbitrary, but I guess it's safe to say that if you'd implement a single-payer system in the US the majority of people would perceive that as a paradigm change that makes the government the major player in paying for healthcare and reduces profit oriented insurances to a marginal group.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sorry I had a moment (perhaps a bit of a fit), of some cultural blindness. I am pretty ignorant of the state and climate of the rhetorical, political, cultural, and other discourses. (Conversations) in Germany. I unfairly lumped you in with a larger conservative narrative I have, that was unfair and inaccurate.
For what it's worth, My error was set into motion by my interpretation of the language you used (which for obvious reasons I should have been more careful with, at least until I identified if you were a native English speaker, time in Germany etc.)and it's similarity to people in the US with pretty different views and an associated rhetoric.
That being said I apologize for my transgressions.
The 'perception' of any shift and it's consequences is at the root of the problem of the debate in the US. Most conservatives here tend to make any more government spending either on the spending side or insuring people side one of the worst things we could do.
Conservatives essentially tend to argue that it's better to leave upwards of 10-15%+ of people completely uninsured than to consider emulating or attempting anything resembling what the countries with better outcomes are doing. (They tend to ignore non-government 'single-payer' options all together evidenced by Jonny's statement, and hes one of the more centrist ones.)
I imagine you came across the numbers in the US and see that our spending is out of control. The easiest and most simple way to lower the cost of insurance is put everyone in the pool who want's to have insurance. That can be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms and management organizations, almost none of which were on the table for conservatives. I'd be hard pressed to actually name any (besides the mandate they were for before they were against it) but perhaps a conservative could?
I guess it boiled down to whether you could do what other nations did and just mandate people have insurance. Well at least one makes an exception for religious people who's 'beliefs' don't allow for insurance. Maybe we could do something like that? They require them to essentially have the health savings accounts Republicans advocate for.
Perhaps there is a middle ground.
Tentative position outline:
Some form of health coverage is required by everyone (I think the ACA mandate and fine is a decent start. I know this is a problem but hear it out and one can come back to this)
Anyone who wants to have a private insurer, Health Savings Account, or whatever the conservative alternative is (parameters to be determined [similar to how other nations have]) can have it.
Anyone who wants a more 'single-payer' style (parameters to be determined) insurance can have it. (maybe even purchased on the private market)
But everyone has something.
Ideally you find a way to legislate the commingling of pools like is done in other nations (it would be mutually beneficial for all involved). Private is 'free' to be private.
There are 15% of Americans 'laying on the ground' that private insurers could have just as good of a chance as any other form of coverage to pick up depending on how we write the legislation. (perhaps this could help capture more than the 38% of healthcare spending currently accounted for by private insurers [who don't have to 'go away' in a 'single payer option'])
The ACA to some degree was an attempt to do this. But the Republicans refusal to have any reasonable discussions about how to tweak such an idea so that they could agree to it, or accept the program once it was law, undermined a lot of those aspects of the law.
TL; DR: Sorry Nyx. 'Single-payer' doesn't mean what most people seem to think. We could have a sensible 'single-payer' option without 'destroying' the private insurance market.
|
Thanks, no offense taken  I completely agree with what you're saying, socialized healthcare in whatever form is probably the only way for big developed nations to guarantee good healthcare for everybody. Funny that I' getting mistaken for a conservative here, I'm actually a member of our social democratic party :D
|
On April 10 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said " As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now? Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding. Not sure what you mean by 'as it exists' so I can't agree with that yet. With rhetoric what it is and voters information being as low as it is in the general discourse, it's a fairly important distinction. That's a fair point that the rhetoric can get pretty crappy. By as it exists I mean that now you rely on insurance for the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer you don't. It becomes an optional add-on rather than the main deal. edit: Show nested quote +The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it This just keeps getting funnier and funnier... You should visit the old 'Venus Project' thread
Depends on what you mean by 'rely' on insurance for a majority of your health care. As I mentioned Private insurers only account for 38% of all healthcare spending and a little over 50% of 'care'. A lot of the people receiving 'care' from a private insurer often have high out of pocket expenses. these are often referred to as the 'under-insured' contributing to the ~11% of health costs paid out of pocket by people with insurance or people who can afford to pay cash.
So if you mean that there will be less people between you and your health care under a model like I've outlined or many other 'single-payer' options then yes. But again the potential interpretations of such a vague understanding is begging for all sorts of problems in constructive discussion and comprehension. (Government doesn't belong in healthcare But don't touch my medicare/caid)
Anything good in that Venus thread?
|
Can someone explain to me how Eric Holder is still Attorney General? Wait, don't bother. I know the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
