USA should regulate healthcare costs, and make insurance nonprofit, not focus on universal plan

anyone who really knows me knows that healthcare is my biggest issue. it should be affordable for everyone, as a right, at least in prosperous countries.  but i've been becoming to see, that our political system is hopeless. politicians sell out to the highest bidder. i means, we should be able to cover everyone at half the cost like every other developed country does, with less wait times and better care.... but our system is too engrained. all those other countries built their systems from scratch, and we'd be fighting to change a major existing infrastructure, our status quo. what would happen if we did pass medicare for all or a public option? well, people would have care, but we couldn't force corrupt politicians into making it affordable for the people and government.... it's very possible that they could bankrupt us. we might get universal care, but they wouldn't fight the industry, and we could go bankrupt. 

see, the biggest reason we spend more than every other country, is because we let providers charge to much. it's a fact that that's the biggest reason. health insurance is also overemphasized, given insurance companies are a pointless middleman that charges thirty percent on the dollar for administrative costs and profit, whereas medicare only charges three percent for adminstrative costs. 

so what should we do? keep what we got, and grow healthcare costs at less than inflation for a set period of time. we can't just take axes to costs, as it'd shock the system. but we can grow slower than we otherwise would until costs are better managed. plus, we can deemphasize insurance to make it non profit so there's no profit motive. see, most other countries aren't single payer anyway... they just deemphasize insurance and make it nonprofit. thus, we'd be in line with most other countries too. 

we can do those two thing without doing medicare for all or a public option. those choices are too risky, given our politicians propensity to be corrupt. we can have half the healthcare industry provided by private sectior as currently exists, but they just dont get charged so much. forty percent of the population gets government healthcare, medicare medicaid CHIP etc, or a small amount of these are insure themselves. these major engrained structures can remain.  

i'm open to addressing the uninsured, the remaining ten percent of people, just not changing the whole system. id be open to getting the poor in states that didn't expand obamacare, covered with obamacare. that wouldn't do much to move needles but would be a big help for them. i'd be open to putting well off people who dont qualify for obamacare into a medicaid plan, where their costs are rationed but they receive good care, that way no one is uninsured. id expect rich people to reimburse all their costs if they are in medicaid though, and i'd suppose they'd be able to afford it. 

in case anyone doesn't realize it, that's how other countries are half as expensive. they regulate prices. also, existing healthcare through government is regulated. medicare pays a third less than insurance for healthcare costs, and medicaid pays a third of what medicare pays. all im proposing is doing more of this, to be in line with other countries. 

I agree.  

Here is an often overlooked part of the conversation.

FDCPA laws were put into place to protect people from unfair debt collection practices. I'm not against FDCPA laws, but I also recognize that they often hamstring debt collectors from performing their function in a beneficial way.

What happens if someone refuses to pay for services? That is equivalent to stealing. If a hospital provides a service that costs money but they receive no payment, they have just lost money. The more people "steal" their services, the more money they lose. This is hard to mitigate since providers usually perform the service before being paid. To compensate, they have to charge the people who do pay more so they can make up those losses.

While there are valid protections under FDCPA laws, they also make it extremely easy for someone to get away with not paying their medical bills if they don't want to. And the list of regulations placed on debt collectors keeps growing, which makes the responsibility on debtors to actually pay their bills shrink.

It is easy to view anyone with medical debt as a victim who just can't afford their medical bills, but I can assure you this is far from being the case. There are indeed people struggling. But there are also many people who simply refuse to pay. Some are unhappy with services and feel they should not have to pay anything. Some are illegal immigrants who went to the emergency room with no intention to pay. Some have foolishly buried themselves in consumer debt and are somehow surprised when they can't afford unforeseen medical costs. Some would just rather spend money on a new jet ski than pay their medical bills. I've spoken with many of these types.

While this is just one piece of the puzzle, I think it would be helpful to consider how people refusing to pay medical bills under the protection of FDCPA laws actually drive up costs for those willing to pay. This is also one way that lawmakers, even at the state level, can have a direct impact on lowering medical costs that seems to never get the attention it deserves.

Give hospitals and debt collectors the means to effectively and fairly recuperate money owed to them, without providing unnecessary protection for those who can pay but refuse to.

This is the system Germany currently uses (other nations near to it and elsewhere use very similar but Germany's system is pretty much what is described here, what they do is subsidise the insurance and regulate its policies to be government-approved). It is also what the Democrat candidates other than Bernie supported as their model this time around in the elections. Biden said he'd support this (this is in fact what medicaid under Obama was trying to move towards).

In fact 'Obamacare' in the original plan before it was heavily protested against, was in fact absolutely this.

You lost me there because that essentially means theft should be a right if you aren't able to provide your own funds for your health.

I am against theft and forced charity, because culturally it creates huge populations of thieves and jealous entitled classes, which have no place in a meritocracy.

I would support reasonable work or financial requirements. That wouldn't change my proposal so u can still consider it.  Also u don't support theft or involuntary labor by providers but given we r already slaves to society a hefty forced contribution would also in a way be forced servitude, so keep it reasonable

Actually no. In the end the only thing we are slaves to is our environment and our genetic biology. Everything else is our own responsibility.

Point in fact, we could have had the very low Covid death rates as China had if people simply owned up to the responsibility of eating properly and maintaining a healthy weight. The vast majority of the Covid deaths were from people who believed they were a slave to food, instead of accepting the reality that they chose to do it.

The vast major contributing cost to healthcare in America is due to the most unhealthy lifestyle choices anywhere on the planet in ANY nation. You don't need to enslave yourself to government authority OR society to fix your own body.

In fact, the government has an endless array of programs that objectively facilitate unhealthy lifestyles, essentially helping people to kill themselves. Government power has never really cared at any point in American history about the health of the peasantry. 

If a person wants property and not live in a box they have to work a lot. Plus healthcare is expensive to the point of forced servitude to afford it. To an extent we r slaves to society or at least at the mercy of others.

Fatties r a big reason our healthcare costs r so much but its a fact that the main reason is simply that we r charged too much

That's your environment and your biology. Everyone has to work to stay alive, whether you participate in society or not.

I agree it's kind of unfair that skinny people often are forced to subsidize the health costs of fatties with insurance "size-fits-all" policies (like Obamacare and Medicare), but the only way around that cost issue would be setting up private health insurance that only accepts healthy weighted people with annual checks. That would guarantee that fat people would pay their fair share of the health costs.

So u don't view working 40 hours a week for 50 years to afford the basics is in any way similar to slavery?

......

I was doing some calculations freehand. The average minimum wage in America is $7.25. Assuming you NEVER invest in yourself nor seek opportunities or take a dime in welfare, if you were to work 40 hours a week for 50 years, you would earn $754,000. And that's almost all tax free at that wage bracket since USA has the most progressive tax scale in the world. To have good food for 50 years would be around $100,000 assuming you never applied for food assistance. That leaves $654,000 to spend on whatever else you need, and you can buy a decent trailer home easily for under 100k.

Objectively anyone working to make that amount of money is CHOOSING to earn far above "the basics"

R u seriously saying those on minimum wage can get ahead? They need a way to survive while earning money so there's no way to save or have kids or not be subsidized on healthcare or anything else. When u make barely more than poverty. Even middle class people struggle to afford basics. Maybe those on minimum wage shouldn't be able to afford the basics but u r deluded to think they can

Do you dispute my calculations? Most people live FAR above their means and call it "the basics"

Our Poor in America are the wealthiest poor in the world, and we have the immigration rates to back that claim up.

In fact, our poor today live better than the top 1 percenters 100 years ago. People complain way too much these days.

1st world problems I guess.

That's their choice to "get ahead"

I don't care about what people choose to do with their lives. If they wanna spend their entire life looking for greener grass, chasing the Joneses in fits of bitter jealousy, so be it. But I shouldn't have to subsidize that. Their idea of "the basics" is an insane distortion of reality. Most people live far above their means and choose to do so, especially at lower education levels. If they choose to chase that rabbit, they can choose to work 40 hours a week for 50 years.

My calculations are correct, and most people waste far more opportunities and money than they care to admit because that would mean to own up to the responsibility of poor life choices.

So u think people should have to rely on charity and hand outs if they want to have the basics?

U offer the choice of be a slave or rely on handouts, even for the middle class... U don't think society has a role in finding better options for the average person?

How about you calculate what you think "the basics" are?

Then we can go on from there.

A person doesn't come with a full bank account and they should be able to have kids when it makes biological sense so we're talking rent and utilities and a car and food for a family. Even in low cost of living areas you'd need at least 20 grand expenses and that's after taxes. Plus u don't believe in subsidized healthcare that we currently have so add on god knows how much . and there's retirement concerns.

Why don't u just join society in offering another choice besides slavery and hand outs?

Still waiting for a dollar figure on what you think "the basics" are for 50 years.

I'm actually retired because I didn't make mostly shitty life choices.

ok...20 grand for "the basics" (which is still pretty cushy but whatevs..1st world problems...)

20k x 50 = exactly one million dollars.

minimum wage earns you 750,000 in 50 years after taxes.

So you need to find 250,000.

If you have a child you can get up to 4,500 a year for food from food stamps x 50 is $225,000

If you have a child you qualify for welfare You get about that amount again, so now you are over "the basics"

Then there are housing programs you can qualify for... now you are way over 1 million.

Here is a quick sheet on what a family can get right now.

As you see Family 2 column which earns minimum wage (not even working 40 hours a week either) gets a grand total of 35,000 yearly.

That's $15,000 above and beyond what YOU consider "the basics" so we are paying the poor more than we have to.

Even people at the top of their field have to rely on obamacare to retire early and u r no more capable than them. I'm betting u rely on the government somehow or will be forced to with a health emergency or catastrophe. Even medicare is subsidized. Social security is subsidized. Maybe u were a slave or relied on handouts. There's no way u beat the rat race, u just r not that capable

I simply chose not to chase the Jones's and lived under my means. The rat race is a social construct.

Ur point is that subsidies shouldn't exist. If they don't exist the average person is either a slave or has to rely on hand outs.

What do u do for healthcare?

Fun fact, you can choose to not overconsume despite what commercial advertising  states.

If you don't make that choice, you are choosing slavery to consumerism.

Trying to converse with u is like trying to nail jello to the wall

Sounds like ur health care plan for people is to pray to god they don't need it