That's a question that could be a prompt for a nice long essay. But I am cool with democracy. I would like a better government structure than the one the U.S. has now so that we could expand the safety net, but I don't think that's what you're asking.

We are all protected by the social safety net and we are all paying for it. So I am not sure how to answer your second question.

Again, this post has the feel of someone who wants an expansion of the Romneycare. The politicians have claimed that Obama/Romneycare is just step one in our move toward universal health care. Not sure if it is true, but hopefully we will get to UHC so people like you and I will not have to worry about soul crushing medical debt.

ANY healthcare is better than none.

itt people who get $70k of baby care taken care of by the good fortune of working for the right company get enraged at having to pay a little more (maybe) to support a system that tries to extend the same protection to others who are not so lucky in their employment structure. Protection enjoyed by citizens of every other advanced nation on earth.

Why do you believe that you would be subsidizing wealthier people's healthcare? Most government programs are set up to be progressive in the sense that poor people get more out than they put in. Even relatively regressive taxes like social security are better for the poor, who get (iirc) ~5% return on their money vs the ~3% wealthy people get. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7...ssivity-SS.pdf has some information on it, and I remember reading a much more in-depth discussion)

Basically, if you're poor, the odds that you are getting more out than you put into any government program is incredibly high.

If you don't think that private companies are more efficient than government it makes no sense to me to even spend 1 second looking for any evidence that may show charity would step in to fill any voids created by less government. To me it is so basic common sense that private organizations that are answering to an owner putting their own money on the line (or in the case of a charity the people making donations) are going to be held to a higher standard than a company (the government) that gets to take the money from people without their consent (and therefore does not have to compete for money). This is simple business sense, simple economics. If your not on board with that we are sooo far off one anothers views it's ridiculous for me to try to show that charities would step in to replace a gov't void.

Lets be real for a second, there are tons of charities that already exist that provide similar functions to what the government is saying they provide. How do you explain this?

yes, but it is an entertaining read. Even more-so if he actually believes it.

b

Do you think the cost of health care goes up or down with a movement towards UHC? When I say cost, I mean resources consumed in providing health care.

You live in the US? Why do you mention democracy then?

Well considering every other advanced country spends about 1/2 what we do per capita on healthcare...

What does the fact that I happened to eventually, after having healthcare for 25 years, wind up in a situation where the bills one year wound up being more than my premiums, have to do with the way that health insurance funded by the government should be strucured?

Why do you think that the gov't subsidies should be based on something other than income/ability to pay?

So you are saying that medical care is an inferior good? There is no way to increase consumption of scarce resources and not increase the price. I haven't looked at studies, but the first thing I would look at is if they controlled adequately for other variables (life style choices, cost of delivering care over a distance, and expenditures on treatments (if any) not available in other countries). There are arguments for UHC, but it would be nice of those wanting UHC at least acknowledge that when people pay less than the true cost of service, they consume more of it (likewise if they are paying more than the true cost of a service they will consume less than an optimal amount).

How exactly do you propose the Mass govt bases your friend's subsidy on his unreported income?

I don't know why this question is being ignored. You can be for UHC and think that a way it is implemented is wrong. I think bkholdem's point is "look, the government, given the chance, set it up this way that is obviously bad. Why would we trust them to do this nationwide?"

So AGAIN, if he HADN'T had that $70k incident, how would you handwave away his concerns about the particular inefficiencies of the way the system is implemented?

What the hell are you talking about? You asked a simple question I gave you a simple answer. All evidence would suggest that costs tend to go down with UHC on a per capita basis. Every country with UHC has one or more of the US' supposed problems. You think Canada doesn't have distance issues? Australia?

Resources consumed will go up. That's just my assumption though. Could be wrong, but it seems logical.

I will answer both these questions if you provide evidence for one of your claims ITT.

I would say maybe at least consider if there is a way to fix the inefficiencies, instead of using them as an excuse to bolster your worldview that all government is a total failure.

I think the money spent could go down like suzzer claims. But paper dollars and not a resource. RR framed the question nicely.

Because it's better than what we have now. And unfortunately thanks to conservatives and their propaganda machine, and people like you who think zero government is always the answer to everything, klugy UHC is all we could get right now.

Let it take root, get people used the idea and realize there are no DEATH PANELS, then wait for the country to finally swing back left a little - and we'll get single payer or a public option. I know you hate that idea - but I don't. Which means for me klugy sell-out UHC is still a step in the right direction.

Here is the data for a family of 3 that is eligible for state subsidized healthcare. Their premium is a little over $100/month. My premium is over $600/month despite making a lot less than 55k/yr. link:
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/po...%2520Guide.pdf

Income guidelines
An individual may be eligible for Commonwealth Care if their family’s annual income is at or below
300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
Family Size Income at or below

3 $55,596
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A family of 3 (that is employed by a small company or self employed) can get this healthcare covered by the state where they pay $116/month for their premium. My income is unfortunately a lot less than $55K/yr and am a family of 3.


Plan Type 3 is for people with household incomes greater than 200% FPG but no more than 300% FPG.
• Type 3 plans have monthly premiums that vary by income, health plan, and region. People with incomes no greater than 250% FPG pay less than people with incomes above 250% FPG.
• There are co-payments for prescription drugs and certain other services.


For information about monthly premiums and copayments, call Commonwealth Care Customer Service at 1-877-MA-ENROLL (1-877-623-6765).


Commonwealth Care
Summary of Costs by Plan Type
Effective July 1, 2011
Plan Type 1

Plan Type 2

Plan Type 3

Monthly premium
(for lowest cost plan)

$0

$0 to $39

$77 to $116

Preventive services

$0

$0

$0

Office visits (PCP/Specialty)

$0

$10 / $18

$15 / $22

Radiology (x-rays, lab work)

$0

$0

$0

Imaging (MRI, CAT, PET)

$0

$30

$60

Outpatient surgery

$0

$50

$125

Emergency room visits
(no copay if admitted)

$0

$50

$100

Hospital stays (inpatient)

$0

$50

$250

Prescription drugs
(Generic/Preferred/Not Preferred)

$1-3 / $3 / $3

$10 / $20 / $40

$12.50 / $25 / $50

Contraceptive prescriptions

$0

$0

$0

Mental health/Substance abuse
(Outpatient/Inpatient/Methadone)

$0 / $0 / $0

$10 / $50 / $0

$15 / $250 / $0

Vision (exam/glasses)

$0 / $0

$10 / $0

$20 / $0

Max out-of-pocket
(Medical/Pharmacy)
per benefit year*

$0 / $200

$500 / $750

$800 / $1500

BTW he's not a drug dealer, he hides his income off the books. I obviously think he's ripping off the taxpayers. I don't really understand what your asking.

BINGO. And it seems like such a fundamental whack criteria why on earth would you trust anything in such a system if the basic criteria is stupid? I can't imagine all of the other things wrong with it.

that makes sense

What I am saying is that for normal goods the price rises as consumption increases. For inferior goods something else can happen. There has to be a reason that health care cost more in the US. It cannot be because less is consumed. It could be that out system of cartels is even more inefficient than a single payer system. I know I am very opposed to out current system of cartels, I favor a free market where guns aren't required.

For only one number is important, the USA spend 6000/ citizen and of course all americans spend a part about there taxes..but not all benefit.

Funny that so many countries are able to offer a better/equal service for 50% less...and ALL benefit.