<p>I’m not arguing it. Previously, I have provided hard data on the Social Security question. That’s already settled. I’m not going to rehash that again. I have not seen the data on the Medicare. Since they are paid through the same withholding, I think the data would indicate the same. Of course, payouts are from different buckets of money. I am sure the states have paid out quite a bit in Medicaid, etc. for undocumented workers at the same time the feds have been raking it in. At the same time, at least in my state, undocumented workers pay a huge percentage of their income in sales taxes. </p>
<p>The largest job losses during this period were of undocumented workers (and hence their paying into Social Security and Medicare, without their ever collecting).</p>
<p>ahhh . . . then perhaps the best solution to our budgetary woes in America is more illegal immigration! Since those who employ them pay into SS and Medicare? And these workers do, as well? Yet they are illegal so costing our society little to nothing.</p>
<p>Any system where a group of people rely on a future group to fund their obligations is a Ponzi that has never worked and wont work ever. The problem with Mini’s mom generation and everyone since then is that people draw way more out of the system than they put in - it’s got nothing to do with legal or illegal peoples’ subsequent contributions. </p>
<p>So many of these arguments make about as much sense as saying that Madoff would have been great if only he’d diversified and included more non-Jews into the mix as time went by.</p>
<p>As to dstark’s remarks about the benefits of people within the government plans - yes, in every Ponzi, the people who’re not at the tail benefit because they got a lot more than what they put in. The only way to compensate for those who got more than they paid for is to find people to whom you give less than what they paid for.</p>
<p>dstark is a really financially savvy investor, who I’m sure knows how to read a balance sheet. If you were to line up a bunch of insurance companies with their Balance sheets and income statements, and put Medicare’s in with them, how do you think it looks?</p>
<p>If I understood it correctly, the Medicare “deficits” for 09-11 were in the “disability” program, which is essentially the federal government assuming the debts for health care for non-elderly people that would otherwise have been paid for by the states. Otherwise, they still ran a surplus. (Of course, the deficit was created to begin with by the prescription drug benefit which, in a single-payor or “Medicare-for-all” system, would be amortized over a much healthier population.)</p>
<p>(Losing the payments of those undocumented workers into Medicare certainly didn’t help matters.)</p>
<p>Regarding your brother, NewHope33, having no insurance and needing the emergency room is not even remotely the worst situation. In many cases the emergency room is just the beginning. Read this for the no-insurance version of mini’s story:</p>
<p>People can rail about illegals and freeloaders, but the sad truth about what happens in American healthcare is that it can be so utterly, randomly unfair. Why we are okay with that while thinking we are the best country in the world is beyond my comprehension.</p>
<p>Am I the only one who finds Scalia’s statement really disturbing? The whole point of the ACA is to get everyone covered, and NOT allow them to jump into the insurance market when they get sick. But this man, who’s probably going to be responsible for killing this enormously important law, appears not to understand its most salient feature.</p>
Yes. Liver transplants are a really serious business, and anyone who pulls it off successfully, whatever the price, is very lucky. Just because a society offers free healthcare doesn’t mean you actually can get a transplant - you could be put on a queue and never get out of it because they can only afford to do a limited number of them.</p>
<p>The question is whether it’s more important to focus on one case or on the system. Taking a broken system and putting money to expand it typically results in a bigger broken system.</p>
<p>Dad<em>of</em>3, thank you for being honest at least; most proponents of the current system won’t say so baldly that people who can’t pay should just die. But the case of transplants isn’t a good argument for private insurance (although the insured and the wealthy tend to be more “lucky” in the transplant lottery), because this is relatively rare. Most denial of care to the uninsured, and denial of claims for the insured, involves more mundane health problems – heart disease, cancer, etc. It is not “one case” as you state. It is rampant.</p>
<p>One way to measure the shocking size of this problem is to look at bankruptcy statistics. Did you know that medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy, by far? And did you know that most of those people HAD insurance? Our system doesn’t work for the uninsured; it doesn’t work for the insured; it doesn’t work for providers; it doesn’t work for employers. It only works for the insurance companies’ top executives and shareholders. This is the best we can do? </p>
<p>On this, I couldn’t agree more:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The system we have now – where access to health care is controlled by a few gigantic for-profit private corporations – is utterly broken. Throwing more money at these corporations will not fix anything. </p>
<p>Have you noticed that every other developed country on the face of the earth covers all of their citizens? And have you also noticed that they have better health outcomes while paying less than half of what we do? If money is the only thing that matters, then you should be angry as hell. You are being ripped off. </p>
<p>There are two fundamental reasons why single-payer does what private insurance can never do:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It gets ALL Americans into ONE risk pool. It’s Insurance 101: Spreading risk and cost among 300 million people will bring down insurance costs for everyone. And, for those who think that humaneness is something we should consider, it also ensures that every American has access to decent health care.</p></li>
<li><p>It eliminates the costs associated with private for-profit corporations, costs that do nothing to help Americans with their healthcare. Marketing. Sales departments. Agent and broker commissions. Application review. Lobbying. Fancy corporate offices and private jets. Rescission staff. Executive compensation (see the title of this thread). Dividends to shareholders. You and I are paying for all of that, and it would all simply cease to exist under single-payer. And the $2 billion that Anthem made in profit in 2010 could either have been plowed back into paying claims, or used to reduce premiums.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"One way to measure the shocking size of this problem is to look at bankruptcy statistics. Did you know that medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy, by far? And did you know that most of those people HAD insurance? Our system doesn’t work for the uninsured; it doesn’t work for the insured; it doesn’t work for providers; it doesn’t work for employers. It only works for the insurance companies’ top executives and shareholders. This is the best we can do? "</p>
<p>Thnk you LasMa. This sums it up beautifully.</p>
<p>Regarding the laughable notion that healthcare is a market akin to household appliances, and anyone who’s staggering under the weight of medical bills just needs to be a smart shopper:</p>
<p>They are far behind tech companies, for example. </p>
<p>It comes down to “Your Money or You Life” as David Cutler puts it. What is more valuable? Your health or your cell phone? Living an extra decade because of a statin or your ipad? </p>
<p>When it comes to healthcare, We want it free and we want it really, really good.It’s never a pleasure to shop for a surgical procedure or chemo or insulin. And even though these “goods” very often save our lives or make our quality of life tolerable, we nevertheless believe it is an entitlement – something “society” should provide for us gratis.</p>
<p>FWIW, I’m for universal “coverage” that is single-payer but spartan (read: UK) alongside a private insurance market for those who can and are inclined to pay (again, read UK). </p>
<p>The problem with the Affordable Care Act is it is a big ugly mess that was hammered together too fast. </p>
<p>We’ll eventually get there, though.</p>
<p>Oh, and LasMas and others on here who think the profit angle is the problem in healthcare, it is worth considering the role that profit incentive plays in driving many of the innovations that we want so much and are so angry that someone else isn’t paying for.</p>
<p>^ lol, California has many problems beyond healthcare costs. California healthcare cost increases are a symptom of California dysfunction in general.</p>
<p>Also, why would it make sense to expect healthcare costs to track inflation when healthcare innovation keeps growing? Is our expenditure on technology only increasing at the rate of inflation? </p>
<p>There is more healthcare product each year. That is, more therapeutic products with consumers who want and often need those products. </p>
<p>My main point is that the insurance industry is not the villain in all of this. If we had to point a finger at those profiting the most from healthcare it would be the whole provider side of the equation – pharma, devices, docs, hospitals. It feels good to blame the insurance companies, though.</p>
<p>Also worth looking at innovation costs, many of which are driven by government regulation. </p>
<p>Then there’s the whole world of non-prescription, non-FDA approved healthcare. Been to Costco lately? How about the billions going down the tube for the latest vitamin or detox or omega-3 fad? Healthcare consumers gobble up that stuff at full pay.</p>