Free healthcare in UK?

I would agree with almost everything you have said above. But, as you clearly state in the same post, we have so many entrenched interests whatever pie in the sky solution you or I can come up with is DOA. So we are stuck with the reality of what we can and can’t implement.

ACA isn’t a solution, it was a band aid, but it was the only band aid we could agree upon and we still have many trying to rip the band aid off without a suitable substitute.

 

I hope ya'll are watching gator baseball while you argue

 

You have no idea what you are talking about on any level here. No one is being denied anything. If you want the right to sue, you pay for such insurance or go to a Cadillac doctor. You have 2 choices to secure that right. Just so you in particular understand, 2 is 2 more than zero. If you have any life at all, and at this point I doubt that to be the case, you probably waive or limit your rights to litigation at least a dozen times a month. most of the times you don’t even know it. Regardless, you still haven’t responded to my simple query. Are you more concerned about the right to sue or healthcare? When you say that my plan hasn’t demonstrated an increase in the right to healthcare, I guess you missed the part where I stated “my” plan provides health care for every American in the United States. Just walk in and get your healthcare and walk out. By the way, it’s pretty clear to all of us here that you have no idea what a single payer plan actually means…. because you continue to refer to “my” plan as a single payer plan, which it is not. Lol.

 

I do not think we are stuck with the shitty system that we currently have. My group is not the only group trying to come up with a workable solution. We are aware of several other groups of individuals like us who are trying to come to a long-term solution. Interestingly, we share many of the same ideas. Hopefully, we will eventually have a meeting with all the different groups. Someplace cool for a few days where we can compare and contrast notes. I have a tremendous amount of confidence in the group of people that have been working on our plan for the last 2 decades from all different professions.

 

Okay, so if there is a poor person, how do they pay for the insurance or go to a Cadillac doctor?

I mean, there is a third choice to: you could just die. But most people recognize that creating choices that people can't utilize is not creating choice.

Classy stuff. Remember when you accused me of being mad? Now you are insulting me. So who is mad here?

Regardless, the government doesn't ask me to give up my rights. If a private service wants to do that so that I can listen to music, that is obviously different than a government telling me that I need to in order to receive healthcare.

Why is that the choice? Why not have both? Why are we only allowed to choose one or the other?

It isn't about rights to healthcare (which we don't have). It is about whether people would be able to utilize healthcare at higher rates than they do under a single payer option for poor people, which is what we have now (at least in states smart enough to expand Medicaid).

No, I am referring to your plan as a single provider plan. Which it is. Who is providing the healthcare in your plan? The government. Thus, it is a single provider plan. If you don't know the difference, don't make it an issue of other people not knowing the difference.

 

You obviously have opinions on the subject and have devoted a lot of time to it and will take significant time to point out what you believe to be others faulty thinking. It is just weird to me how you seem to be averse to discussing the specifics in any level of detail here.

 

I am actually. Going well so far! Surprised the ball is flying this much today.

 

at this point you are boring me, so this is my last response to you. I’m not going to even bother reading the remaining part of your post. I will address this question, because you are clearly clueless about how Obama care works. I will be brief and use small words for you. Currently, Obamacare provides tax credits so people below a certain income can purchase health insurance. The credit you receive is enough to purchase a high deductible/co-pay health policy. A deductible is money an insured/patience pays before his insurance kicks in, and a co-pay is the per visit charge. Both are money the patient pays. These two costs are the primary reason Obamacare is a failure for its proposed purpose. Under the plan I am discussing, the patient has no deductible or co pay. So to answer your question, if the patient is poor, the money he would have paid as a copay and deductible can be repurposed to pay for his right to sue…but since most people are smarter than an amoeba, it is likely they will just accept the 1% risk of getting nicked by the Dr so they don’t have any out of pocket expenses. But in your warped reality we can’t have health care for the other 99% of the population because it’s not fair to the trial lawyers…because Morgan & Morgan needs the newest helicopter to fly between his mansions… SMH. This is the last time I waste on your nonsense. Bye

 

There is a legit reason: this message board is not the right audience. Pure and simple. Besides, there is no way I can get into the minutiae of the plan without posting really long (and for most boring) treatises. It serves no purpose for me to do so. Plus, we have some current political issues we are trying to problem solve, so it’s not complete.

 

Post of the Day!

They don’t want to listen to chose people. Trust me!!!

 

Don’t forget that they are also getting an HMO likely to keep the premiums cheaper…

 

This is very true.

 

Problem was you were in a Tennessee hospital. Those people think that net land was an admiral and have a navy.

 

So you come on here, talk smack about your mad health care policy skillz - but don’t want to be bothered with sharing, on a politcal board, because it’s too boring and there are political issues not quite worked out.

Well done.

 

Wow, you mad!

ACA provides subsidies for middle class people, not the poor. Under ACA, the poor are served by Medicaid expansion (if a state chooses to accept it, and are basically not served when a state chooses not to do so). So you clearly have no idea what you are talking about here.

Second, you clearly haven't even thought about the setup of your plan enough to realize you are proposing a hybrid single provider/free market system or the economic implications of such a plan. You are incapable of intelligently discussing the issue.

I'd suggest a class with health economists to understand these issues better. Maybe MIT has one!

 

I am pining for every American to have access to healthcare before they are critically sick or injured. I actually would prefer a multi-payer system because I don't want the government having full control over healthcare.

 

Well it looks like your 10 years of research have failed to turn up a couple of key points.

First a high deductible policy - HDHP - typically by definition does not have copays. You have a high deductible, 100% pay, then co insurance, until you reach the point where you meet a specified out of pocket max.

Second - HDHP’s were developed prior to ACA. Obama was not actually a fan of them. They were previously enacted as a way (by Republicans) to couple with health care savings accounts, such that that people would make more price conscious decisions with their out of pocket money. It was a bit ironic that they ended up being heavily used as ACA policies, because they were cheaper, and ACA drove up the cost of an average policy by broader coverages and making pre existing condition exclusions illegal.

3. As pointed out by MD, ACA market place policies were not intended for the poor, the Medicaid expansion was. But then the USSC decided that states should be able to opt out of the expansion, and the result was in the states that opted out, middle and lower middle class consumers could get subsidized health care, but the poor couldn’t.

As I am sure your extensive research uncovered the market place policies were modeled after Romneycare in MA, and previously the brainchild of the Heritage foundation.

 

In healthcare one of the key aspects of controlling costs (and keeping affordable) is leverage. Somewhat counter intuitively to typical free market doctrines, the more payers (insurance companies) the less leverage they have, and the more providers have leverage, leading to higher prices. If there are a lot of health plans in an area, doctors and entire doctor networks can opt out of lower reimbursing plans. But if they are the only game in town, then the provider networks don’t have much choice.

The concept of leverage is one of the reasons you’ve had hospital consolidations into networks is such that they have more pricing power.

In a single payer network the government has all the pricing power, assuming they are allowed to negotiate and set prices. Plus providers only have one payer, and presumably much less billing administration. Layers of armies of clerical people submitting and resubmitting claims at the providers and receiving and rejecting claims at insurance companies are eliminated.

 

With the government competing and holding such strong bargaining power, it'll force the private providers to offer a superior product. End of the day, those who can't afford private plans will still have access. Those who can will have choice. Best of both worlds. I want a system like Germany's.