There's talk and hope in many quarters that the United States will end up with Medicare for all. How would this affect nursing?
I currently pay a lot for my portion of high deductible insurance through work. It's basically mainly useless to me since I'm healthy, don't take meds etc. Even going to the doctor would cost me.
Honestly, the middle class has become the new underserved in America. Frugal, responsible people think twice about going to the doctor because of huge copays that have made basic healthcare a budget buster.
How would Medicare for all affect the middle class, nursing in particular? Employers would no longer have to pay for insurance. Would they pass savings on to us in the form of higher wages? How would we fare economically with higher taxes? Would the poor government compensation to facilities drive down wages?
Oh, so now you are "forcing" private insurance companies to go out of business? (another subject) There goes competition even more! Poof! Monopoly.
Anyways:
We pay taxes. Income taxes. We already pay a LOT of it.
It will increase the taxes even more, and also drive up the costs even higher.
Name a single thing that came out from "universal anything," that didn't end up with higher taxes. Anything. And what happens if you drive taxes up for -insert whatever reason here-?
You punish the middle class. The 1% couldn't care less. You guys are trying to punish "us," the climbers of the ladder called society's income-based hierarchy, by raising our income tax rates.
And guess what will happen? We should know. What happens microscopically, will happen in a macroscopic way.
Example. New Jersey. Real estate tax rates. (reason = education in their case) New Jersey population influx (in versus out).
Why do you think there is such a business & population influx boom in states like Texas or Florida?
Look, Im not into forcing anyone to do anything. Personally, we would be better off without insurance companies but that’s my personal opinion.
As some posters have already stated it would cost less: $32 trillion is $2 trillion less than the $34 trillion we are spending with the current model.
I am middle class and believe me, I dont want anymore taxes. If you were to have one payer (the government) you would no longer need to pay insurance companies. I would be in favor of my $150/month going towards a medicare model than a company that may or may not pay my medical bills.
Yes, Texas and Florida are attractive because of no income tax and weather, however, Florida generally pays less (actually that’s the south as a whole).
Look, Im not into forcing anyone to do anything. Personally, we would be better off without insurance companies but that’s my personal opinion.
As some posters have already stated it would cost less: $32 trillion is $2 trillion less than the $34 trillion we are spending with the current model.
I am middle class and believe me, I dont want anymore taxes. If you were to have one payer (the government) you would no longer need to pay insurance companies. I would be in favor of my $150/month going towards a medicare model than a company that may or may not pay my medical bills.
Yes, Texas and Florida are attractive because of no income tax and weather, however, Florida generally pays less (actually that’s the south as a whole).
Then we do have a disagreement. I look at results to base my judgement. People cite "studies," that are not proven with results (real world) when it comes to social policies.
I'd like to use a simple example. Lasik surgeries. Compare the procedural cost with another comparable procedure, that the "government" pays for.
Then we do have a disagreement. I look at results to base my judgement. People cite "studies," that are not proven with results (real world) when it comes to social policies.
I'd like to use a simple example. Lasik surgeries. Compare the procedural cost with another comparable procedure, that the "government" pays for.
Lasik is an elective procedure so Im not sure that is comparable to the system people are proposing.
Compare the "elective procedure," called Lasik. Which the government does not pay for,
with another "similar procedure" that the government pays for.
Which costs more? Similar procedure/personnel/equipment.
Costs will skyrocket, and guess who will cover those costs?
Yes. Us, the "middle class."
How will costs skyrocket if the government is the only payer?
What do you mean a similar procedure? You cant compare two separate procedures. Im pretty sure some insurance companies dont pay for lasik either. Its alot more affordable now anyways than it was 10-15 years ago.
How will costs skyrocket if the government is the only payer?
What do you mean a similar procedure? You cant compare two separate procedures. Im pretty sure some insurance companies dont pay for lasik either. Its alot more affordable now anyways than it was 10-15 years ago.
Compare and contrast, "anything" that the government pays for..
versus, what a private entity would pay for.
Supply and Demand. One of the fundamental rules of economics.
You do not acknowledge that accessibility to government money (tax dollars) is one of the main criterion that drives health care costs up even more.
And now, you just refuse to acknowledge, that the costs of health care will skyrocket even more never mind, that we (taxpayers) are already paying for it through our income tax rates. And under your proposed plan which you claim that it will lessen our tax burden..
history, evidence, and actual results in the real world disagrees with the rhetoric, that a universal health care plan will NOT increase our income tax rates.
Compare and contrast, "anything" that the government pays for..
versus, what a private entity would pay for.
Supply and Demand. One of the fundamental rules of economics.
You do not acknowledge that accessibility to government money (tax dollars) is one of the main criterion that drives health care costs up even more.
And now, you just refuse to acknowledge, that the costs of health care will skyrocket even more never mind, that we (taxpayers) are already paying for it through our income tax rates. And under your proposed plan which you claim that it will lessen our tax burden..
history, evidence, and actual results in the real world disagrees with the rhetoric, that a universal health care plan will NOT increase our income tax rates.
If you are claiming private insurance pays more than government then you are mistaken. Yes, medicare currently pays a percentage but private insurance also pays a percentage (or not at all).
If you have one payer then you would have no bill. Everything would be 100% covered (except meds but I think that would be partially covered?).
If you are claiming private insurance pays more than government then you are mistaken. Yes, medicare currently pays a percentage but private insurance also pays a percentage (or not at all).
If you have one payer then you would have no bill. Everything would be 100% covered (except meds but I think that would be partially covered?).
I am claiming that private insurance pays LESS than the government.
sigh.
This is why I brought up the Lasik surgery as an example. Private payers will drive cost DOWN while government paying for ANYTHING will drive costs UP.
Taxes are separate for it gives the government power to pay for those things.
Oh, so now you are "forcing" private insurance companies to go out of business? (another subject) There goes competition even more! Poof! Monopoly.
Anyways:
We pay taxes. Income taxes. We already pay a LOT of it.
It will increase the taxes even more, and also drive up the costs even higher.
Name a single thing that came out from "universal anything," that didn't end up with higher taxes. Anything. And what happens if you drive taxes up for -insert whatever reason here-?
You punish the middle class. The 1% couldn't care less. You guys are trying to punish "us," the climbers of the ladder called society's income-based hierarchy, by raising our income tax rates.
And guess what will happen? We should know. What happens microscopically, will happen in a macroscopic way.
Example. New Jersey. Real estate tax rates. (reason = education in their case) Result: New Jersey population influx (in versus out).
Why do you think there is such a business & population influx boom in states like Texas or Florida?
I understand what you're saying at and like you, I count myself among the ranks of the struggling middle class. However, with the current healthcare scheme, it's largely the middle class that are 'being punished' in a financial sense and the poor, in terms of human suffering. As an example, a "poor" insulin dependent diabetic that is denied basic preventive care-i.e. chronic disease teaching, nutritional counseling, foot care, insulin! The costs of their many inpatient hospitalizations for complication of their disease processes (DKA, ESRD, chronic infections, and amputations) is of course passed on to the taxpayers. How incredibly short sighted and cost inefficient this system is, not to mention cruel.
I am claiming that private insurance pays LESS than the government.
sigh.
This is why I brought up the Lasik surgery as an example. Private payers will drive cost DOWN while government paying for ANYTHING will drive costs UP.
Taxes are separate for it gives the government power to pay for those things.
Taxes will go up. It will SERIOUSLY go up.
While that may be the case for lasik (again, an elective procedure) private insurance is not driving the cost down for surgeries like bypass. Why is it cheaper in countries with a universal payer? According to your argument our healthcare should be cheaper and its not.
While that may be the case for lasik (again, an elective procedure) private insurance is not driving the cost down for surgeries like bypass. Why is it cheaper in countries with a universal payer? According to your argument our healthcare should be cheaper and its not.
You must then use comparison of a country, with universal health care that resembles our population. Including the tax payer vs non tax payer ratio.
Again, if you let the market (consumers-demand) determine the cost (supply), you will lower the costs. This is based on evidence, real results, and how it just turns out.
If you let the supply (government tax money) control the market (consumers-regardless of demand), you will drive costs up.
You must then use comparison of a country, with universal health care that resembles our population. Including the tax payer vs non tax payer ratio.
Again, if you let the market (consumers-demand) determine the cost (supply), you will lower the costs. This is based on evidence, real results, and how it just turns out.
If you let the supply (government tax money) control the market (consumers-regardless of demand), you will drive costs up.
Not only that, you'll also drive taxes up.
Ok but again that is not the case. Costs are RISING. By your theory shouldn’t our healthcare be the lowest because of all the competition?
OUxPhys, BSN, RN
1,203 Posts
Look, Im not into forcing anyone to do anything. Personally, we would be better off without insurance companies but that’s my personal opinion.
As some posters have already stated it would cost less: $32 trillion is $2 trillion less than the $34 trillion we are spending with the current model.
I am middle class and believe me, I dont want anymore taxes. If you were to have one payer (the government) you would no longer need to pay insurance companies. I would be in favor of my $150/month going towards a medicare model than a company that may or may not pay my medical bills.
Yes, Texas and Florida are attractive because of no income tax and weather, however, Florida generally pays less (actually that’s the south as a whole).