Here's what your single payer healthcare funding would look like.

[SlugSlinger]

I think medical premiums should be based on the voluntary risk factors one exposes themselves to.

Let’s see:
If you smoke or vape, that will add 1000% to the average premium.
If you eat at McDonald’s, Braun’s, Wendy’s, etc, that should add 500% to the average premium.
If you don’t exercise 30 minutes a day, that should add 250% to the average premium.

If we use some logic with insurance premiums then people might realize and adjust their own lifestyle to help reduce medical costs. But hey, most people don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Frederick]

Not trying to be harsh but should you be telling everyone else how great a system is if you're ignorant to the costs of providing healthcare for a family?

Nah…I don’t think it’s fair to say that you need to have direct experience with something to have an opinion on it. I’m just not personally familiar with that because it’s not relevant to me…at the end of the day as a young, heathy single working man I am subsidizing the healthcare of people with families….should I not be allowed to have an opinion on how my money is spent?

 

[El Pablo]

Nah…I don’t think it’s fair to say that you need to have direct experience with something to have an opinion on it. I’m just not personally familiar with that because it’s not relevant to me…at the end of the day as a young, heathy single working man I am subsidizing the healthcare of people with families….should I not be allowed to have an opinion on how my money is spent?

I believe you (may have been someone else) said earlier your aca health insurance is almost free. Only way that happens is you are being subsidized. Which means you are not subsiding anyone. Heck, in our current system, aca or not, we are subsidizing the 5% that account for 50% of the heath care spending..

 

[Frederick]

I believe you (may have been someone else) said earlier your aca health insurance is almost free. Only way that happens is you are being subsidized. Which means you are not subsiding anyone. Heck, in our current system, aca or not, we are subsidizing the 5% that account for 50% of the heath care spending..

well…I had aca subsidized insurance for less than a year before I got my current job that has health insurance…so maybe “free healthcare” for a grand total of 6 months? The other 10 years I’ve been paying for my own healthcare..at the time I made less than 30k a year.

 

[JD8]

The difference is that they are not designed to make money for the owner's or shareholders, so in other words are not profit driven but rather there to provide a service. Unlike right now where almost all pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded companies so are driven to maximize profits. That's not to mention the paten trolls. How many high profile stories in the last 10 years have you read where a patent troll snapped up a medical patent then skyrocketed the price of that drug to an astronomical amount? That is what I'm trying to prevent for all of the medical industry.

I think you need to do some research on what these "non-profit" models employ. They surely ARE there to make money, they just have a tax break. However I get you're idealistic and are being literal in your definition. Problem is.... who decides the cost of the price of goods and services? You? The government? How much does a knee replacement cost? How much did it cost to make that ventilator? How do you decide the cost of labor involved from start to finish of a product or drug?

That is the damn problem and the point you are missing! All the supposed "fixes" are focusing on cheaper insurance rates INSTEAD of focusing on the real problem that the medical industry is pretty much more monopoly than free market, therefor they are given a free pass to charge anything they want and pass it on to insurance, who then passes it on to us, usually in a distributed cost, because once again medical insurance companies are all for the mighty profit margin. In the end its us consumers who get screwed. We don't have a choice here. Its like deciding if you want cable tv or not.

Not sure if you are being obtuse or just aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm not offering that insurance is the only solution. Explain the monopoly of the medical industry. I can research my doctor, my hospital, I can choose my meds, I can choose my procedure. If I'm on a gurney then sure, you go where they take you. But the definition of a monopoly incorporates a single seller to the market. You might want to look up what a monopoly really means in addition to non-profit.

There is no free market. Again, that is the biggest problem. Just as one example (that I have already given and it was ignored completely) a set of 2 epipens was $92 before the 2007 acquisition of the patent. Fifteen years later it now costs $700 for a set. That is a 660% increase in price. The new generic version of it? That runs about $340, still a 270% increase. In a free market that would be impossible to achieve as consumers would switch to a lower price alternative or just not purchase it. Then the law of supply and demand would dictate that demand would go down, supply would stay constant so price would go down to compensate. You do NOT have that in the medical industry. The demand will be there regardless of the price as people NEED this product. So there is no free market with the medical industry, so it should not be treated us such. That is only logical.

Partially correct, there is no true free market. Think the government can fix? Show me examples in the United States. To your point you have a drug that has has increased substantially. How about drugs that have not? Want a huge list of drugs that are free or $4 @ Walmart?

But hey let's do a 5 sec search on Goodrx to see if your pricing is real...... nope.

Epipen Prices, Coupons & Savings Tips - GoodRx

Compare prices and print coupons for Epipen (Epinephrine (Epipen JR) and Epinephrine (Epipen)) and other drugs at CVS, Walgreens, and other pharmacies. Prices start at $108.81

www.goodrx.com

~$112 through three widely know retailers.

In which I'm not saying the current system is perfect by any stretch, I'll argue differently all day long. However, the point is that the free market has allowed some private companies to provide a solution to your problem.

As far your example of strong arming, you just proved my point. If I get in a wreck and go to the hospital I have no choice but to accept the services, regardless of the price. I don't get to pick who takes me to the hospital, I am not given a list of hospitals, their rates OR if I want those services unless my injuries are slight enough that I can refuse treatment. And, I can not negotiate the price of those services or look at lower priced alternatives. This type of strong arming is rife in the medical industry and not just limited to accidents.

With no regulation only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare. Am I for complete government control? No. But, in the absence of a free market, there should be regulations on pricing to make a necessity affordable.

In terms of "strong arming" that may apply to an emergency situation for sure but two things here. A majority of healthcare does not involve emergency situations. (reference 3 main causes of death). Also, how does complete government control fix this solution?

 

[JD8]

Nah…I don’t think it’s fair to say that you need to have direct experience with something to have an opinion on it. I’m just not personally familiar with that because it’s not relevant to me…at the end of the day as a young, heathy single working man I am subsidizing the healthcare of people with families….should I not be allowed to have an opinion on how my money is spent?

Oh you can have an opinion, it's just an uniformed one. You literally had no idea of the cost for those with a family or those in an older demographic. In the end this isn't a discussion as to how your money is spent. I asked how the government has made things better. You provided that it made it better for those like yourself looking for a handout. I have shown that it is MUCH more difficult for those with families, are making more money, or are aging. The only people that truly like Obamacare are getting something for free.

 

[Frederick]

Oh you can have an opinion, it's just an uniformed one. You literally had no idea of the cost for those with a family or those in an older demographic. In the end this isn't a discussion as to how your money is spent. I asked how the government has made things better. You provided that it made it better for those like yourself looking for a handout. I have shown that it is MUCH more difficult for those with families, are making more money, or are aging. The only people that truly like Obamacare are getting something for free.

you have a point. I only have vague ideas about the cost for a family…elderly are mostly covered by Medicare I thought…

I reject the idea I’m looking for a handout. I’m definitely not getting something for free now…in fact my premiums have gone up in the last 3 years dramatically…my deductibles are up and coverage less…I imagine in any universal healthcare system my premiums will go up again…
As a young single healthy person, I am subsidizing older folks and the unhealthy…that’s just how the system is set up…

 

[StitchJones]

It is absolutely clear that people will be cheering when we have full government controlled health care.

Like it or not, when the number of people taking something outnumber the people that pay for it, quality and availability plummet.

No amount of good intentions will change that. We literally just watched the ACA do exactly that, now some are calling for more of the same. Unbelievable.