Reid finally admits the obvious about Obamacare

archer wrote: Sometimes VL....you post exactly the right thing.

lol It's getting rarer and rarer, but I appreciate that Archer, I know it wasn't easy to admit.

LJ you did not read what I wrote. I said IF we have a single payer, i.e. if the govt takes over the industry, NOT what is happening with the ACA, that is a take over of the money to run the current industry with all the goals of reducing cost and getting everyone insurance.

Again, I was saying IF they govt takes over medicine in a single payer some time in the future (a long time in the future because we have to work thru the ACA), in order to take it over under US law they would have to buy it out...or will the govt simply pay all the hospital bills after we pay them. If that is the case we are still paying for hospitals, like today, but my concern is that if you have single payer they may take over the assets, the control concerns me less than paying for them all at once.

You cannot quote what the future single payer law looks like. Quoting the law I did not argue except that it will likely cost people more and delay the thing you wanted does not make sense.

The despite that the ACA is a big grab for the insurance companies, the real elegant part was using the people that wanted single payer, such as your self, as your primary marketing agents.

Please quote the single payer law once it passes, if you don't die of natural causes in old age first.

I had a real question in there, when other countries went to single payer, how did the transition the ownership of real property and assets? Does anyone know? And would such a transition comply with US law for taking of private property, we have a specific way this happens here. But we come up with new ones all the time, like the ACA, a new way of taking.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Rick wrote:

towermonkey wrote: I think that the ACA is a giveaway to the insurance companies. They are and will continue to raise their prices and gouge the American people with no push back. They wrote the law. Anyone who is for the ACA as a step in the right direction is misguided. Single Payer on the other hand, would have been a BIG step in the right direction.

Premiums must be raised drastically unless the actual costs of health care comes down... which this ACA doesn't address.

Yes... The ACA DOES "address it." It doesn't address it by necessarily "raising the premiums"...(Another Randroid talking-point...) They address it by having MORE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. The premiums of those additional people in the system bring the costs down. The economists are already predicting that with single-payer, and EVERYONE in the system, it saves $500 BILLION in the first ten years.

The ability to fall back on your talking points while hearing nothing is truly awe-inspiring.

How is this Randriod and really please answer.

The average cost of health care per citizen is $9,000 per year in the US in 2011. This has nothing to do with who is paying, this is the total divided by the population.

ON AVERAGE in order to cover the costs of health care, each person will have to pay a premium of $9,000. If anyone pays less, someone else must pay more. These are facts.

In what way do you expect the ACA to lower this? How much are folks here paying PER PERSON in their families to cover the costs. Are you paying less than $9,000 PER PERSON per YEAR?

I don't even have a derogatory word for what you call your talking points. Perhaps, not really having a point....?

Do you really expect the ACA to lower costs and are you willing to talk about the actual costs being published or quoted in 2, 4 8 years. Or will you just respond.....

RANDROID RANDROID RANDROID I AM RIGHT BLA BLA BLA I SAID RANDRIOD SO NOTHING ELSE MATTERS, NO REAL POINTS NEEDED, INSERT QUOTE OF AN OPINION OF A QUOTE HERE....EVEN BETTER IF IT HAS THE WORD RANDRIOD.

on that note wrote: I had a real question in there, when other countries went to single payer, how did the transition the ownership of real property and assets?

When you have a source that proves that it happened, let me know.

on that note wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Rick wrote:

towermonkey wrote: I think that the ACA is a giveaway to the insurance companies. They are and will continue to raise their prices and gouge the American people with no push back. They wrote the law. Anyone who is for the ACA as a step in the right direction is misguided. Single Payer on the other hand, would have been a BIG step in the right direction.

Premiums must be raised drastically unless the actual costs of health care comes down... which this ACA doesn't address.

Yes... The ACA DOES "address it." It doesn't address it by necessarily "raising the premiums"...(Another Randroid talking-point...) They address it by having MORE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. The premiums of those additional people in the system bring the costs down. The economists are already predicting that with single-payer, and EVERYONE in the system, it saves $500 BILLION in the first ten years.

The ability to fall back on your talking points while hearing nothing is truly awe-inspiring.

How is this Randriod and really please answer.

The average cost of health care per citizen is $9,000 per year in the US in 2011. This has nothing to do with who is paying, this is the total divided by the population.

ON AVERAGE in order to cover the costs of health care, each person will have to pay a premium of $9,000. If anyone pays less, someone else must pay more. These are facts.

In what way do you expect the ACA to lower this? How much are folks here paying PER PERSON in their families to cover the costs. Are you paying less than $9,000 PER PERSON per YEAR?

I don't even have a derogatory word for what you call your talking points. Perhaps, not really having a point....?

Do you really expect the ACA to lower costs and are you willing to talk about the actual costs being published or quoted in 2, 4 8 years. Or will you just respond.....

Yes, I really expect the ACA to lower costs... The numbers have already been provided.

I already responded... Your reading-comprehension problems are not my problem... Here it is again:

It doesn't address it by necessarily "raising the premiums"...(Another Randroid talking-point...) They address it by having MORE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. The premiums of those additional people in the system bring the costs down. The economists are already predicting that with single-payer, and EVERYONE in the system, it saves $500 BILLION in the first ten years.

If you want details: Single Payer Saves Billions

I won't bother to comment on a premise that's based on falsehoods...

And save your "budget deficit" hysteria for someone else...We're all full up here:

Deficit projection reduced to $642 billion, CBO says

The federal budget deficit will plummet to $642 billion this year, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday, reducing their previous forecast by roughly $200 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office credited recovering tax revenues and a one-time infusion of cash from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the dramatic reduction, which puts the nation on track for its smallest deficits since the economic crisis hit in 2008.

Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the deficit will continue to shrink, falling below 3 percent of the overall economy by 2015, a level economists consider to be economically sustainable.

LadyJazzer wrote:

on that note wrote: I had a real question in there, when other countries went to single payer, how did the transition the ownership of real property and assets?

When you have a source that proves that it happened, let me know.

I understood the concept of Single Payer as the government taking on the role of the insurance companies, only no profit involved. What "property" is involved? It wouldn't be government operated healthcare, but government funded.

So in single payer, the entire current infrastructure is left in place and the govt just pays the bills?

If so, is there not still profit at the hospitals and points of service, goods etc.?

Now if that was made illegal, how to you resolve that millions of people made trillions in investments based on potential future profits? Do you just say oh well, that group looses?

So if it is that govt just pays the insurance, then the docs still profit greatly as do the $50,000 antivenom folks and $3,000 a night beds etc. If the govt tried to get rid of profit, don't they have to stop the profit somehow.

LJ to you have any impartial perspectives on the savings, you seem to get upset when people that disagree with you present biased informational from a group that has an agenda. Or since you understand it so well, could you simply put it in a paragraph, the basic logic of how money is saved under any of these systems? I know you will likely say you have already done so or I am too stupid or something, but given how many 100s of times you have posted on this subject, can you summarize why the ACA or universal care will work well and save money. Please if you are game, pay attention to some of the common criticisms you know well in order to shoot them down. Please help us all to understand once and for all. The post of posts. (or you can refer to when you have already done this if you have and I missed it.) Thanks, I would like to save money and if someone else know how to spend ours better than us, I want to understand the basic logic. PLEASE NO SOURCES, your words if you can. Facts rather than opinions if you can.

And I know you are critical of my comprehension so maybe you already went over why you have to sling so many insults in order to make a point, why does your information typically come with so many of them? Why don't your arguments, justifications or sources stand on their own without the monkeyshit? Really?

I am also curious, since I did read that the premiums are solved by bringing more people into the system (which once done will average $9,000 per person still, so $30k+ for a family) what kinds of folks are currently not insured, I thought this was mostly young and poor folks that could not afford it in the first place. Do these groups really have enough extra cash around to solve one of the biggest financial shortfalls ever?

And I look forward to revisiting this in a few months to years and either being right or seeing everyone get health care for less and having better lives. Either way, I guess I am happy.

LJ, did you actually bring up deficit and ignore debt and imply that we dont have an owning money issue??? Even you cannot have your cake and eat it to, but I am damn sure you will claim you did, even if the cake was never even made, you will even have "sources"

I am trying to find resources as to how other countries transitioned. I am not finding much info out there. In other socialized medicine countries, who do the doctors work for and who sets their wages. Who makes the devices and who sets their prices, who sets the prices to use the devices? Where exactly is the govt making the call and where to people make calls?

To add a question to the above, who pays for research and development?

Here's a good description of single payer...

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

So single payer can deal with either private or public healthcare services, or both.

Medicare is usually considered a single payer system although it has premiums which single payer may or may not have. And Medicare generally works with private healthcare services.

If you want to see a description from a pro single payer group, here is one...

What is Single Payer?

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.

Access and Benefits

All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures.

Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.

Payment

Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.

Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. In most cases, government would serve as administrator, not employer.

Financing

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

"will average $9,000 per person still, so $30k+ for a family)"....Really?...And your source for that would be? I'm still waiting....

Since the U.S. is considered 36th in the world in quality of health-care, that means there are at least 35 other countries doing it better.

Physicians for a National Health Program
‘Medicare for All’ Would Cover Everyone, Save Billions in First Year: New Study

Economist says Canadian-style, single-payer health plan would reap huge savings from reduced paperwork and from negotiated drug prices, enough to pay for quality coverage for all – at less cost to families and businesses

Single-Payer National Health Insurance
Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance

Interesting how there are enough physicians who are tired of seeing the insurance-industry talking-points that they are lobbying for universal health care themselves.

I guess you missed the part about $BILLIONS being saved by allowing negotiated drug prices too..... There are so many ways to cut costs and bring more people into the system instead of the knee-jerk "raise premiums" talking-point...

But feel free to continue...