Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 08, 2019

New York City will begin guaranteeing comprehensive health care to every single resident regardless of someone's ability to pay or immigration status, an unprecedented plan that will protect the more than half-a-million New Yorkers currently using the ER as a primary provider, Mayor Bill de Blasio said.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

New Yorkers will be able to access the program through the city's website or simply by calling 311. There will be no tax hikes to fund it, the mayor said.

This should be interesting..

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 01:20 PM | Reply

And quite frankly, this is where this needs to be tested. I would rather see localities trying this type of redistribution.

I think it's going to be a disaster, but if not, other states can look to implement it if it works..

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 01:29 PM | Reply

Look for an inundation of NYC by the poor, elderly and illegal migrants.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-08 01:31 PM | Reply

"the more than half-a-million New Yorkers currently using the ER as a primary provider"

I've always believed a walk-in clinic should be located adjacent to every ER. The docs I've spoken to often denounce folks who use the ER for too many reasons. There's even a term they use to refer to them: GOMERs, which stands for Get Out of My Emergency Room.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Look for an inundation of NYC by the poor, elderly and illegal migrants."

Because it's already an easy, inexpensive city to live in???

Most of the poor have the subsidies.
Most of the elderly have Medicare.
I can certainly see your third claim, however.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 01:36 PM | Reply

Reading the article, it's fairly comprehensive, not health ins, but there is also a primary care health plan, and there is a sliding scale fee plan.

The rub will come when mAndrea shows up trying to get a free face lift.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-08 01:39 PM | Reply

www.bloomberg.com

I wonder if they will take care of the bill for their retirees, which they still owe...

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 01:47 PM | Reply

And how about their pensions?

www.nytimes.com

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 01:49 PM | Reply

Wait a minute.

There's 8 million residents in NYC. 100 million to pay for all this? I know I'm not good at math, but I doubt that's going to pay for the medical bills of 8 million people. And that doesnt even count for the influx of non payers once this gets out.

What's that equal out to? About $100 per person a year in healthcare?

Really?

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 01:56 PM | Reply

"What's that equal out to? About $100 per person a year in healthcare?"

Yes, if you use Republican Math™.

Using Actual Math™, 100/8 = 12.5, so it's about $1.05 a month.

That said, 8 million is not the number. None of the folks already covered will be interested in what will certainly be a bare bones plan.

Ultimately, I'll go on record saying this is going to cost A LOT more than they're budgeting.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

Ultimately, I'll go on record saying this is going to cost A LOT more than they're budgeting.

#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-01-08 02:03 PM

Agree 100%.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-08 02:10 PM | Reply

Ok, well the "number" is 600,000 residents / 100 million = $166 a person...

How's that math?

#12 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 02:17 PM | Reply

what will certainly be a bare bones plan.

At a press conference Tuesday, de Blasio said the plan will provide primary and specialty care, from pediatrics to OBGYN, geriatric, mental health and other services, to the city's roughly 600,000 uninsured.

Um, that's not bare bones.

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 02:19 PM | Reply

I can certainly see your third claim, however.

If he left out illegal immigrants, he might be able to pull this off.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 02:22 PM | Reply

Don't those same people just show up at the ER now?

#15 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-08 02:32 PM | Reply

#15 Yep, it's right there in the first sentence:

"an unprecedented plan that will protect the more than half-a-million New Yorkers currently using the ER as a primary provider,"

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 02:37 PM | Reply

that will protect the more than half-a-million New Yorkers currently using the ER as a primary provider,"

Protect? Protect them from what? Actually having to pay at the ER?

No, this is just a plan to keep non payers from going to the ER, where the expense is probably more.

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-08 02:43 PM | Reply

Look for an inundation of NYC by the poor, elderly and illegal migrants.
#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-01-08 01:31 PM

You mean those who have been left without a means to pay for health care will now have access.

"Inundation" reads that NYC has a vast sum of it's population that falls into those categories..

#18 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-01-08 08:26 PM | Reply

Cool I can drop my insurance and retire in NYC.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-09 12:24 AM | Reply

Cool I can drop my insurance and retire in NYC.

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-09 12:27 AM | Reply

Cool I can drop my insurance and retire in NYC.

You couldn't afford to live there.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-09 12:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ultimately, I'll go on record saying this is going to cost A LOT more than they're budgeting.
#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Really going out on a limb there Danforth...

Just like when you said Obamacare would work out, and was on every thread claiming so. That our rates would drop, and actually save us....

It doesn't matter that it will cost more, its the credit the Mayor gets ... How can you guys not understand this.

Its not his money after all ....

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-09 12:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Wow, Liberals are avoiding this thread like a sickness. We have another thread on healthcare well over 100 posts.

Why avoid this one?

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-09 07:52 AM | Reply

I've always believed a walk-in clinic should be located adjacent to every ER.

You would think that would be an obvious answer. What's to prevent a hospital from investing in a walk-in clinic on hospital property or an adjacent lot?

Answer: There is no financial incentive for hospitals when they can charge exorbitant fees for their services.

HHS should incentivize the building of walk-in clinics in high traffic, densely populated areas.

#24 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-01-09 08:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wow, Liberals are avoiding this thread like a sickness. We have another thread on healthcare well over 100 posts. "

B.S. I posted but you avoided answering my post. Liar. Is it cheaper to treat illness at a doctor's office than at the ER? Are we going to allow people to die because it costs money to cure them? Quit trying to put everying into a Liberal vs. a Conservative argument, why not try to start actually evaluating the situation and dealing with the best possible way to deal with it. Drop ideology, people's lives are on the line. Do you even care about that. Is it ok in your mind to allow illegal immigrants to die because they are outside of the system? Think about that BOAZ, I believe you are better than that and I believe you can and will, eventually, reevaluate and consider that human beings, regardless of where they came from, are worthy of healthcare services. I honestly hope I'm not wrong in my evaluation of you.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 08:41 AM | Reply

With the best intentions we may encourage more of what we subsidize. How do get people to pay for something they can get for "free"? Why would people work and pay for their own medical care and also subsidize the able bodied that choose to spend their dollars for other purposes?

#26 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-09 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why would people work and pay for their own medical care and also subsidize the able bodied that choose to spend their dollars for other purposes?"

Perhaps because preventive care saves our lives? Most of us don't want to wait until something is critical as a life threatening illness is too advanced to save our lives. Preventive care doesn't only save our lives, it also save huge amounts of money because it is far less expensive than treating advanced illnesses, like cancer, heart disease, etc.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 09:01 AM | Reply

Thus providing preventive care to all saves money and, though I know you don't care, lives.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 09:02 AM | Reply

There's no way to subsidize the truly needy without also subsidizing the lazy and greedy.

#29 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-09 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Just like when you said Obamacare would work out, and was on every thread claiming so. Just like when you said Obamacare would work out, and was on every thread claiming so."

Good God, you're an awful liar.

I've been against Obamacare since the start, and never made that opinion secret. The only good thing I said was if it helped stemmed runaway medical inflation, I'd have to give it props. Well, it helped stem runaway medical inflation.

Once it was in place, about the only positive thing I said was it was better than anything else anyone else had proffered. I also pointed out when Trump started monetarily sabotaging the markets.

Other than that, I've been for single-payer for decades.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:03 AM | Reply

#25,

I call BS back. I'm going to respond when you word your posts to where the only reply is "let government just take money". Not going to happen.

Now if you talk about everyone paying a tax to fund single payer, I will answer. But all your solutions tug on heart strings and feelings cannot be used as a justification in a country where everyone is supposed to be equal.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-09 11:26 AM | Reply

Wow, Liberals are avoiding this thread like a sickness. We have another thread on healthcare well over 100 posts.
Why avoid this one?

What's there to say? A city is implementing its own program and you're -------- all over it even though you don't live there and it has zero effect on you. Why would anyone show up and argue with you?

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 11:27 AM | Reply

- There's no way to subsidize the truly needy without also subsidizing the lazy and greedy.

The latter are a small percentage of the former... but that never stopped anyone truly concerned about the former, it's only a lame objection by Objectivists.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-09 11:39 AM | Reply

How is he going to do that for less than $200 per year per person?

#34 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-09 12:15 PM | Reply

How is he going to do that for less than $200 per year per person?

Do you actually care? The information is easily accessible.

For the City's 600,000 uninsured, the two-pronged program will seek to register people eligible for insurance in the city's MetroPlus program, which already has about 520,000 subscribers.

Those who don't qualify -- which includes all approximately 300,000 undocumented immigrants -- would be offered a separate pay-as-you-go approach known as NYC Care.

Participants will be provided with a membership card to the municipal hospital system, assigned to a specific primary- care doctor and provided with a 24/7 hotline. Everyone will be eligible.

Those in the NYC Care program will pay for visits or medical services on a "sliding scale" based on income -- something that's happening now anyway.

But officials believe that by unifying services under what they tout as a more customer-friendly banner, they can divert patients from emergency rooms, where costs are astronomical.

nypost.com

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good thing that the hospitals won't miss any of that ER revenue.

#36 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-09 01:59 PM | Reply

"That our rates would drop, and actually save us.... "

I never said that, nor have I ever believed that. In fact, I took Obama to task for both the "$2500 savings" and "you can keep your doctor"; I knew both were wrong immediately, and specifically called the latter "stupid".

Tell me...why do you need to lie about my positions, repeatedly?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 02:17 PM | Reply

Tell me...why do you need to lie about my positions, repeatedly?

#37 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That comprises roughly a quarter of the posts on the DR - lying about others' positions. I rarely even respond to that crap anymore.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-09 02:38 PM | Reply

$100,000,000 divided by 600,000 uninsured = $167/year/person. How is this anything more than lip service? If they did actually provide coverage, expect the 600,000 to double or triple in size. This is a liberal pipedream that this can be accomplished on a city or statewide basis only. Personally, I want to see single payer.

#39 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-09 08:15 PM | Reply

Personally, I want to see single payer.

#39 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Then stop doing everything possible to defend republicans, stupid.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-09 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then stop doing everything possible to defend republicans, stupid.
#40 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Stop thinking in a Dem/GOP paradigm like Dems actually want to help you. They could have passed anything while they controlled all of government - and did without any GOP support and they chose to do the insurance industry hand-out CF called Obamacare vs. actually providing healthcare. Obamacare set back health reform by years.

#41 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-09 08:37 PM | Reply

I took Obama to task for both the "$2500 savings" and "you can keep your doctor"; I knew both were wrong immediately, and specifically called the latter "stupid".
#37 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You did not .... you can sit here a claim anything, the mandate CHECK, you overly optimistic belief it would work CHECK, that we would save money CHECK ...

You never once said it would cost more, at the time you were the biggest Obamacare expert and proponent here, the resident EXPERT.

I am lying about your position? that is absurd and you know it.

Though I will give you credit, as of late, you are a little more fair all around than the old Danforth, but still a literalist ;)

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-09 08:50 PM | Reply

"Stop thinking in a Dem/GOP paradigm like Dems actually want to help you."

....what? If you don't like Democrats, why not just say it? What does a Dem/GOP paradigm have to do with anything?

#43 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-09 08:51 PM | Reply

lying about others' positions. I rarely even respond to that crap anymore.
#38 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I am not lying about Danforths overly optimistic belief that Obamacare would be great thing and save us and the government money...

He was on here daily touting the PoS legislation.

#44 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-09 08:51 PM | Reply

Stop thinking in a Dem/GOP paradigm like Dems actually want to help you. They could have passed anything while they controlled all of government - and did without any GOP support...
#41 | POSTED BY НЕТБИАСАФИША101

Ruskie, you need to update you talking points. Tell your rukovoditel to research US politics prior to 2015. Very naive of you to think the American people would not remember that Obama used the days of Democrat control to save the economy and all other initiatives were filibustered to hell by a bunch of tea party lunatics that just watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington* for the first time.

*Fun fact; conservatives think Atticus Finch was the antagonist in that film.

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just like when you said Obamacare would work out, and was on every thread claiming so. That our rates would drop, and actually save us....
#22 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Obamacare did work and does work; in areas that didn't sabotage it. You habitually vote for the kinds of people that sabotaged it, so you have only yourself to blame.

#46 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 09:01 PM | Reply

"They could have passed anything while they controlled all of government - and did without any GOP support..."

And all they did was the first major expansion of health insurance in a generation, extending coverage to about 20 million Americans; more if the red states had opted in to Medicaid expansion...

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-09 09:04 PM | Reply

#45 Mr. Smith Goes To Washington To Kill A Mockingbird is one of my favorites!

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-09 09:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Obamacare set back health reform by years.

#41 | Posted by nobiasposter101

And supporting trump/republicans will set it back even more.

Yet that's what you do here every day. Spouting trump's daily talking points, instead of defending people who actually want single payer like you CLAIM to do.

Go back to your old username coward. No one is being fooled.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-09 09:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am not lying about Danforths overly optimistic belief that Obamacare would be great thing and save us and the government money...

He was on here daily touting the PoS legislation.

#44 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Yeah it didn't save YOUR life, so it wasn't a great thing.

Those people whose lives it saved don't matter.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-09 09:12 PM | Reply

"He was on here daily touting the PoS legislation." - #44 | Posted by Andre a Mattress at 2019-01-09 08:51 PM

If it was such a PoS, why didn't the Republican Congress repeal it when they had the Senate, House and Oval Office?

And before you start with the "they needed 60 votes in the Senate" nonsense, it used to be 60 votes were needed in the US Senate to get a SCOTUS nominee on the Court.

Majority Leader Turtle did away with that.

He could have done away with it to repeal Obamacare.

He didn't.

#51 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-09 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Andrea,

I remember Danforth being overall supportive of ACA as a net positive. That doesn't mean he supported each and every aspect of it.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-09 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They could have passed anything while they controlled all of government - and did without any GOP support..." - #41 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-09 08:37 PM

You mean the way the Republicans could have repealed Obamacare when they had the Senate, House and Oval Office?

Like that?

#53 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-09 09:25 PM | Reply

You mean the way the Republicans could have repealed Obamacare when they had the Senate, House and Oval Office?
Like that?
#53 | POSTED BY HANS

That is a great example. They were given a clear mandate by their supporters and then they did the opposite because they are bought and paid for by corporate interests. That is why the GOP lost seats in the midterm - because they ran away from the Trump policies rather than embrace them.

Now, you want to admit the reason why the Dems gave us Obamacare rather than single payer is because they are bought and paid for by the insurance companies or are you still stuck on GOP = Bad, Dem = Good?

#54 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-09 10:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

That is why the GOP lost seats in the midterm - because they ran away from the Trump policies rather than embrace them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*breathes*

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 10:05 PM | Reply

Joe,

Do you need me to send you an oxygen tank and mask?

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-09 10:10 PM | Reply

GOP = Bad, Dem = Better

Sheep are known for their lack of rational thought... and dropping little pellets out their butts.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-09 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sheep are known for their lack of rational thought... and dropping little pellets out their butts.
#57 | POSTED BY CORKY

So are Dem politicians. Their supporters are known to eat the pellets and claim they taste like sunshine.

#58 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-09 10:45 PM | Reply

If GOP = Bad && Dem = Better && Dems eat ---- pellets and claim they taste like sunshine is true then Republicans are worse than -----pellet-eaters is also true.

So the russian is saying republicans are something worse than ---- eaters. Finally something we can all agree on.

#59 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 10:54 PM | Reply

"I remember Danforth being overall supportive of ACA as a net positive."

You also remember lots of folks affected by the Cadillac Tax.

Ultimately, I was positive about two things:
1) The stemming of runaway medical inflation, which was not solely due to the ACA, and
2) The fact it was better than the Republican alternative.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:10 PM | Reply

"I am lying about your position?"

Yes, you are. You probably have me confused with someone else, or more likely, are believing what you want to believe.

That said, I'm sure I corrected a lot of misinformation, which is not the same as endorsement. Look at the recent debates on M4A for proof.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:14 PM | Reply

Majority Leader Turtle did away with that.

#51 | POSTED BY HANS

Where's the civility? You shouldn't call Cocaine Mitch names.

#62 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 11:26 PM | Reply

"That said, I'm sure I corrected a lot of misinformation, which is not the same as endorsement. Look at the recent debates on M4A for proof."

Wait, so you aren't for M4A? Then why did you tell Pinch you were on his side?:

"What you don't realize is I'M ON YOUR SIDE. I just know you're nowhere near prepared for battle."

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 11:44 PM | Reply

"Then why did you tell Pinch you were on his side?:"

I'm AM on his side; my point was folks were all attacking me as if I was AGAINST M4A.

IOW, don't judge me by my pushback; it has nothing to do with my agreement with the goal.

Similarly, don't believe I'm endorsing ACA because there are some aspects that were better than prior.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:56 PM | Reply

#64 Danforth, serious question: How is it that you are for M4A when you and your wife stand to lose your high quality insurance plan? I'm asking because perhaps what persuaded you can be used to persuade others in a similar situation.

#65 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-10 12:00 AM | Reply

"How is it that you are for M4A when you and your wife stand to lose your high quality insurance plan?"

Three reasons:

1) I have to buy my own health insurance (my boss is a real -------, that guy in the mirror...)
2) We'll both be eligible for Medicare within the next 5 years.
3) I know it's best for everyone, even if my wife loses her good care.

We both have pre-existing conditions, but then again, who doesn't at 60?

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:06 AM | Reply

"1) I have to buy my own health insurance (my boss is a real -------, that guy in the mirror...)" :-)

"2) We'll both be eligible for Medicare within the next 5 years."

When I was researching earlier today I learned that the number of people on Medicare is going to jump from 53 million (in 2016) to 79 million in 2030. I was thinking that might help M4A come to pass because those retirees will have a vested interest in keeping Medicare around, and many of them will vote.

"3) I know it's best for everyone, even if my wife loses her good care."

We need to find a way to appeal to that kind of altruism in more people.

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-10 12:15 AM | Reply

"what persuaded you can be used to persuade others"

What really persuaded me was decades on health committees and an aptitude for math. I'm not sure that's persuadable material.

My intro was actually a shock. In the mid-to-late 80s, I was on a nationwide conference call for Actor's Equity as my city's representative. We got the jaw-dropping news our requirements to qualify for health care were going to double, overnight. Stunned, several asked why, one asking "Is this about this...AIDS thing?" To which the insurance guy on the phone hesitantly said, "Well...um...yes, this is about this...this...new cancer.

IOW, the insurance company wasn't even calling it AIDS yet.

My first reaction was, "This affects a lot of my constituents; I should get involved." I served on health committees the next two decades, and was elected a health plan trustee in 2011. I've been for single payer since I understood the concept.

Serving on the committees gave me a lot of research on how others administered plans, and to our favor, we weren't afraid to steal good ideas. "Wellness" was a new thing back then (early 90s), but we believed if we enacted it, we'd see a bending of the cost curve away from its freaky trajectory after a handful of years.

We were wrong; we started to see it almost immediately, from the first 6-month report, to every one after that. The insurance companies didn't balk at all. They knew what we were finding out: prevention is MUCH cheaper than cure. Which is why insurance companies didn't make a peep when the ACA mandated "free" wellness: they knew it meant even MORE money in their pockets.

When asked over the years why I favored single-payer, I developed a saying: "Look up Health Insurance Industry Reports Record Profits and ANY YEAR YOU WANT".

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We need to find a way to appeal to that kind of altruism in more people."

We're also very lucky: we can afford to be altruistic. Others might not have it as good.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:37 AM | Reply

"Medicare is going to jump from 53 million (in 2016) to 79 million in 2030."

Yep.

10,000 people a day turn 65, and will for the next dozen years or so.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:39 AM | Reply

"How is it that you are for M4A when you and your wife stand to lose your high quality insurance plan?"

There's also no guarantee that a public option would eliminate his private insurance.
Plenty of people on Medicare have supplemental insurance.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 12:41 AM | Reply

"Others might not have it as good."

I guess I was assuming the others who don't have it as good would be for M4A once they learned how it would benefit them, but I think you are referring to your client who has a minimum wage job and great insurance as opposed to those clients who have both great salaries and great insurance.

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-10 12:43 AM | Reply

"Medicare is going to jump from 53 million (in 2016) to 79 million in 2030."

Easy way to fund that is to just put every American in there...

I mean, if you have health insurance through work, you're already paying for Medicare... and if the money you and your employer spend on private insurance was put into Medicare, I wouldn't be surprised if that created a health insurance plan that would compare favorably with the best Cadillac plans.

Of course, that doesn't hurt anyone, so Trump Guzzlers will never, ever support it.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 12:45 AM | Reply

"if the money you and your employer spend on private insurance was put into Medicare, I wouldn't be surprised if that created a health insurance plan that would compare favorably with the best Cadillac plans."

I would.
~Sincerely, Math.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:53 AM | Reply

How about the average Silver plan, then?

If you can show some math, that would be great too.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:04 AM | Reply

Face it.

Danforth has some magical insurance he'll never part with. No matter how many others would benefit.

Dan. You and the people with magic life insurance are no better than Trump and his rich buddies not wanting to pay taxes.

Cause you already got yours.

#76 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-10 01:30 AM | Reply

Some interesting facts here:
journalistsresource.org

"The poor use more medical goods and services than the rich and a larger portion of their expenses are financed by the government."

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:39 AM | Reply

#77

Doesn't matter.

Dan and his buddies already have theirs.

Screw everyone else.

#78 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-10 01:41 AM | Reply

Don't be afraid to say how you really feel.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:44 AM | Reply

"How about the average Silver plan, then?"

How about hoping for a Bronze?

It's tough even getting there without a tax increase, at least at the beginning: we'll be dealing with 22 million new enrollees virtually overnight, and a lot of pent-up demand.

According to the Kaiser Foundation, average family size is about 3.65, although rates for families aren't 3.65 times single rates, since kids are much cheaper. Averaging the family costs between large and small companies is about 19,200. www.peoplekeep.com

If M4A costs $3.2 BB a year, to cover 330 MM, that's about $9700 per person, or $215BB for the additional 22 million uninsured.

As for the math, the government currently pays $1 Trillion. Private employers pay $1.5 Trillion. $2.5 Trillion, divided by 330 million = $7576/yr

So it depends on your age. At 33, it's a Gold plan. At 63, it's a 8 months of a Bronze plan. But as an average? I think you've got something. Still, to make the $3.2 Trillion we'd need a $700BB annual tax increase. We currently have $3.3T as annual revenue, so it'd be about a 22% hike in taxes, since higher rates always bring along higher avoidance. And keep in mind--the average age of the folks covered at work is generally younger than the overall populace needing coverage.

Now we just have to convince the 50 million at the top of the chain to give up Platinum for something between Bronze and Silver.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 02:42 AM | Reply

"Danforth has some magical insurance he'll never part with."

Did you miss the part where I buy it on the Marketplace Exchange?

Last year, my premiums were $1103 a month.

This year, I have an HSA. After wellness, the next $6250 is out of my pocket.

If that's magic, I want to see the guy behind the curtain.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 02:45 AM | Reply

"You and the people with magic life insurance are no better than Trump and his rich buddies not wanting to pay taxes. "

Are you hammered on Ripple again?

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 02:47 AM | Reply

"There's also no guarantee that a public option would eliminate his private insurance."

For all intents and purposes, yes it would.

Remember, you're already counting her employer-paid premiums in the communal pot. Anything pulled out would have to be made up somewhere else.

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 02:52 AM | Reply

We need to find a way to appeal to that kind of altruism in more people.

#67 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Unfortunately, Randians view altruism as a character flaw.

#84 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-01-10 07:51 AM | Reply

So, there becomes of shortage of doctors. All other things being equal, the doctors are going to treat the patients that offer the most remuneration in return. Unless NYCare is able to offer rates on care that are competitive to what other plans offer, those patients will drop to the bottom of the list. And even if they do offer competitive compensation, why wouldn't those with healthcare pay just a little bit more to ensure that they received priority treatment.

This will be interesting...

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-10 11:05 AM | Reply

I can't stand when they keep trying to say that healthcare is a right. It isn't. If it were, people wouldn't have to pay for it. In every country that socializes it, the people pay for it in high taxes (regardless how hard you want to believe that's not true...it is). And if a country is paying for it outright without any income from the masses, then it's a privilege of living in that country that they are doing so. In no way is healthcare a right. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad to socialize it, I'm just saying let's use logic and actual reasoning instead of buzzwords that try to sway people.

#86 | Posted by humtake at 2019-01-10 11:58 AM | Reply

"Still, to make the $3.2 Trillion we'd need a $700BB annual tax increase."

Did Trump's tax cuts gave away more than $700b?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 12:26 PM | Reply

"Did Trump's tax cuts gave away more than $700b?"

Yes...but not in one year. About $230BB per year, on average.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:29 PM | Reply

"If M4A costs $3.2 BB a year, to cover 330 MM, that's about $9700 per person, or $215BB for the additional 22 million uninsured.

As for the math, the government currently pays $1 Trillion. Private employers pay $1.5 Trillion. $2.5 Trillion, divided by 330 million = $7576/yr"

Right now Medicare covers the elderly and the disabled, whose health care costs are higher than the normal population, so I don't think using the $9700 figure would be accurate across the board for all people. The number might not be as low as $7576 per person, but it wouldn't be $9700 either. IOW, I don't think you will need $700 billion. Oh, it will still hundreds of billions, but maybe not as high as you are estimating.

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-10 12:32 PM | Reply

Danforth if you just look at percentage of GDP, it's readily apparent single payer/public option costs less.

Do that math.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:13 PM | Reply

"Danforth if you just look at percentage of GDP, it's readily apparent single payer/public option costs less."

And a bicycle costs less than a car...that doesn't mean that car owners are going to trade down.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-11 02:39 PM | Reply

You're right, nobody in those systems would trade down for our bicycle that costs more than their car.

The question is, why won't we trade up?

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 02:44 PM | Reply

"The question is, why won't we trade up?"

If you're positing that, in healthcare terms, you could get a car for the cost of a bicycle, I'm all in.

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-11 03:01 PM | Reply

You can. They have it in France and Germany and Japan. And pretty much every other modern country.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 03:30 PM | Reply

"The number might not be as low as $7576 per person, but it wouldn't be $9700 either."

That's how the math works out at $3.2 Trillion. My Bronze coverage, by comparison, is just under $12K/yr for a male in his early 60s, in an HSA.

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-11 05:10 PM | Reply

Single or family coverage?

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 05:11 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort