Paul Ryan: Obamacare repeal is first priority under Trump

That is an example. Government run healthcare is demonstrated to be more cost effective than private sector.

That's why I'm wondering if you're trying to limit it to just the US government to demonstrate its particular inefficiency.

 

The only example of government run healthcare in America we have is the VA.....and I'm pretty sure that's not more cost effective AND it's level of care is well below what most people would consider acceptable for the US.

So yeah, come up with some legit examples of the government taking over something and making it more cost effective and it'll lend a lot of credibility to your assertion that if the government would only take over the healthcare system that it would be cheaper and better.....because honestly I don't see any evidence that would support that suggestion based on the history of the US government.

 

The old VA clinic in Austin was replaced by a healthcare clinic for low income people that can't afford traditional healthcare called CommunityCare. There are multiple CommunityCare clinics around Austin that provide similar healthcare. They use residents from Seton Family of Hospitals to treat and diagnose patients to keep costs down while being mentored by an Attending to overview their treatment towards patients. They provide affordable Rx at $10 per Rx, behavioral health counseling and psychiatric evaluations, dental care, contraceptives and overall general family practice healthcare. This is funded through tax dollars on the municipal, county and state level as well as through private donors.

The premise behind it is to treat patients through preventative methods before they get really sick and require extremely costly healthcare. Healthy people and people that have minor illnesses that can be treated through routine doctor visits is more cost effective than uninsured ER visits which is one of the most expensive forms of healthcare there is. Thing is though, uninsured ER visits are also backed by your tax dollars, just in a less cost effective measure. Providing more preventative healthcare like this to the poor actually drives down costs more so than leaving them uninsured and untreated until they're deathly ill.

Besides being more cost effective, it gives people access to healthcare they otherwise couldn't afford and improves their quality of life which is great if you really do support humanitarian efforts. I know you personally don't care but improving the quality of life for the lowest income bracket costs you less in taxes than just letting them get deathly ill then receive treatment.

Other examples would be other developed nations who have a more successful cost effective healthcare option than the ones we have. Canada, UK, France, etc. You'll discard those because it goes against your narrative though.

 

Lost track of the arguments. So let me get this straight. Candidates for replacement plan that I have heard so far are:

1. Churches
2. Municipalities
3. Let them die

Did I leave off anything or anyone?

 

What do you call medicare?

 

Clearly not government run.

 

That would be a government run insurance program, not government run healthcare.

 

Single payer system is also a government run insurance program.

 

So are we talking about government run insurance, or government run healthcare. There's a difference.

 

I thought we are only talking about a government run insurance plan like medicare or single payer system. We are not talking bout government running all the hospitals, at least that is what I thought.

 

Also, if you look at Medicare and Medicaid about 120 million Americans use those programs which is less than half and it already costs a quarter of the entire budget.....How much more are we looking to spend?

 

Medicare is more cost effective than any private insurance out there, if we turn medicare over to private insurance companies, services would be reduced and cost would rise. How much is the total health care for this country? How much is medicare?

so for 2014 medicare cost was 505 billion or 14% of 3.5 trillion total government budget, it has an enrollment of 53.8 million. The total health care cost for 2014 was 3.8 trillion with a total population of 318.9 million. That is 16.9% of the population with high healthcare cost needs but only used 13.3% of the total healthcare cost.

 

Okay, again though even if I accept that assertion, so now we're talking about spending more than half the entire federal budget on health insurance per year.....so what are we cutting out of the budget to pay for it? Are we just raising taxes by three quarters of a trillion dollars or more a year?

 

On top of that, there are a ton of doctors that don't accept Medicare, would that mean that people just wouldn't have access to those doctors?

 

I expect if we were in a Medicare for all system those doctors would start accepting Medicare or they wouldn't stay in business.

You're correct government spending would significantly increase. However that increase would be less than people and companies are currently paying for health insurance (in theory). What the tax would look like I don't know (payroll, income, etc.)

 

Yes, I expect it would cost less per person than the current average per person cost of medicare, as the current medicare recipients are the most likely to be in need of medical treatments.

 

When boomers start retiring in great numbers folks will be reminded why we should all have basic insurance.

 

How does Bobby not understand we are already paying for the cost of healthcare regardless?

 

I would think they would still exist only you'd have to pay out of pocket meaning only the rich would have access to the best healthcare.

I think for that massive of a tax increase you'd have to do many different methods in order to try and hide just how much is getting jacked from the people. So basically all of the above.

 

You might not even have to charge tax, just let people buy into the current medicare system.