@LasMa Well, tom1944 may know everything about it, but since I don’t know that and since I don’t accept every single aspect and rule, the answer has to be “no”.
I am asking would you support expansion of Medicare to those below the age of 65
If you want to discuss how to pay for it I am happy to discuss ideas. I am willing to cut other programs, discuss revenue and controls on costs.
There are several other national systems I believe should be looked at also
Look at the Swiss system also
I would support expanded ‘sin’ taxes to expand Medicaid. Mexico has put higher sales taxes on sugary drinks and junk food and consumption of those items has decreased. High sales taxes on junk food and drink serves two goals: decrease unhealthy habits and increase personal responsibility for ones own health. A large percentage of health care spending is due to obesity related conditions so if a sugar tax would reduce consumption it should be tried.
For the same reason, I would support increased sales taxes on booze and smokes.
JustOneDad #159 - Making sure I have this right because frankly I can’t quite believe my eyes. Under your two-tier plan, a life-saving Tier 2 treatment wouldn’t be available to a Tier-1 person, because they “considered” all of the options and decided against Tier 2 coverage. Just a few problems:
- For many people, "consideration" is going to mean they can't possibly afford Tier 2. So, once again, richer people will have more and bettet health care than poorer people. It always comes back to that, doesn't it?
- Tier 2 people alone will bear the cost of innovation. That's going to send their premiums way up.
- The moral problem. I'm not going to spell it out, because anyone with even a small dollop of compassion and decency doesn't need it explained.
Of course, all of these problems would be solved by simply expanding the system we already have for seniors.
“More elderly are being turned down for surgery because of ageism: private surgeon”
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/more-elderly-are-being-turned-down-for-surgery-because-of-ageism-private-surgeon
I guess that the Montreal Gazette is just another right wing publication.
@TatinG, we can separate three different notions embodied in your idea of increasing sin taxes:
(1) Would a tax on sugary beverages and junk food lower consumption of those food items? Yeah, probably. It would be more effective for sugary beverages. Junk food is so much cheaper than non-junk food that even raising junk food prices probably wouldn’t drive consumers to non-junk-food very much.
(2) Should we nudge consumers away from consuming “unhealthy” foods by taxing? I won’t take a position on that.
(3) Would a tax on sugary beverages and junk food be enough to fund Medicaid expansion to a significant degree? Not really. It wouldn’t raise nearly enough money. Let’s do a back-of-the envelope calculation.
All US spending on food amounts to about $1.4 trillion dollars. Say that half of that spending is taxable junk food or sugary beverages, probably a high estimate, but let’s go with it. Say that we impose a 10% tax, and pretend that (1) above doesn’t work at all, and our tax fails to change eating behavior in the slightest. Then we have just raised $70 billion, which sounds like a staggering sum, and it is. But current Medicaid spending is half a trillion bucks, seven times that much. So, this big tax is only raising one-seventh of current Medicaid spending, enough to pay for a little bitty expansion, not a significant one.
In general, the big problem with funding health care by taxes on food is a simple one: we pay twice as much for health care (about $3 trillion) as we pay for food (about $1.4 trillion). We should evaluate junk food sin taxes on their own merit, and not on the forlorn hope that they’ll pay for health care.
Excellent, Fang. Plus, it’s been my experience that people who are opposed to expanding health insurance also tend to be opposed to using taxes to change private behavior such as junk food consumption. “Social engineering,” right?
@lasma What is your take on the Montreal Gazette article I posted above?
@TomSrOfBoston My take is that age discrimination occurs in both the US and Canada health care systems. Both have universal coverage for the age group he’s talking about.
Do you believe that both Canada and the US should throw seniors onto the open market to fend for themselves?
@lasma You are not addressing the issue raised in the Canadian article Your question in irrelevant to the article but rather an attempt to further your point of view.
Good lord! I read the article. I thought it would talk about denying surgeries to people in their 90’s for medical reasons.
But denying shoulder surgery to a 64 year young woman! 64 is NOT old.
What struck me about the article was the cost. What are the total costs for shoulder surgery in the US? I bet it’s a lot more than the $8000 the Canadians in that article were charged.
I’m positive that many 62-year-olds in the US who need that surgery also are not getting it, so we are in no position to plume ourselves about our superior system.
8k for a shoulder surgery? Seems like a steal. My gallbladder surgery was billed at 30k.
@Cardinal Fang No one is “pluming themselves up”, rather the Canadian system is not as good in reality as it is on paper.
Folks, an article about a doc does not define ageism in the Canadian health system. For gawd’s sake. SMH.
As well, some lay person telling you they wanted an operation does not say it was the only medical solution or the best choice in light of risks.
Also, Healthcare Blue Book notes a US fair price of roughly just under 8k fair for rotator cup repair: outpatient, physician, anesthesia. Of course, this changes if you add in more.
If you can find the name of the other person’s procedure, you can look it up.
And the American system is not as good in reality as it is on paper, either. Here’s the difference: In the US, the distance between “on paper” and “reality” is a good deal larger than it is in Canada.
Which is really saying something since we suck on paper, too!
Very true, romani.
TomSr, in our system the main form of discrimination is discrimination against the poor, not the old.
So you are saying that discrimination against the old is not as bad as discrimination against the poor?