What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics, and Taxes 2: That's Why We Fight to Take the Means Back

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying about multi payer. it doesn't mean what we have now. the countries all named have very strict regulations on how they are administered. Those countries are nothing like our system, they just aren't purely single funded by taxes like Canada and the UK. They are very complex systems

and, I think THIS is the argument we should be having - how to fund universal coverage, instead of "we want it" vs "let me get reamed up the ass by my private insurer while I go broke and get to call others commies"
Click to expand...
The thing that I fear of a multiple system is that here in the us, our business practices are very much in favor of the top at companies. Very different than Germany or France. So even if we spread it out, would it keep top end pay reasonable for what they actually contribute?

As for funding it, we all already contribute to a for profit system. Move that all to a single payer. Done. That would provide care to everyone and improve the outcomes to all who are already part. No change in the net cost to people who pay already- just a shift how where it goes.
 
MichVandal said:
The thing that I fear of a multiple system is that here in the us, our business practices are very much in favor of the top at companies. Very different than Germany or France. So even if we spread it out, would it keep top end pay reasonable for what they actually contribute?

As for funding it, we all already contribute to a for profit system. Move that all to a single payer. Done. That would provide care to everyone and improve the outcomes to all who are already part. No change in the net cost to people who pay already- just a shift how where it goes.
Click to expand...
no, I'm just not going to agree. If we're going to truly fix things, I want them the way it is in multipayer systems. that doesn't mean for profit companies skimming off the top. It just doesn't.

single payer doesn't automatically increase outcomes, and that's why I differentiate it from universal coverage.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
no, I'm just not going to agree. If we're going to truly fix things, I want them the way it is in multipayer systems. that doesn't mean for profit companies skimming off the top. It just doesn't.

single payer doesn't automatically increase outcomes, and that's why I differentiate it from universal coverage.
Click to expand...
What is the benefit of multi over single?
 
rufus said:
Gee, why would we pay more than people in other countries? That's so hard to figure out.
Click to expand...
arm45l.jpg
 
Bronco said:
How does a multi payer prevent this when it is still government controlled?
Eli5.
Click to expand...
welcome to why this is one of the most complex things to implement, why no country has figured it all out yet, and why nearly no two countries have the same exact funding mechanisms. who is the financer and are they also the purchaser? are the providers owned by the government? there's so many permutations

many of them don't have a simple two party system, either.

I'd take single payer in a heartbeat if offered, like I said, this is the kind of debate i wish we still had.
 
Last edited:
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
no, I'm just not going to agree. If we're going to truly fix things, I want them the way it is in multipayer systems. that doesn't mean for profit companies skimming off the top. It just doesn't.

single payer doesn't automatically increase outcomes, and that's why I differentiate it from universal coverage.
Click to expand...
It’s my specific situation that is getting to me. BCBS is non profit. And they want more for themselves. No idea how that adds up.

I understand why single payer could be bad, though.

Universal care where more of our money goes to health care will fix a lot, regardless of single v multi payer. Seeing a public university hospital system argue with a non profit company where the patients are the real losers just confirms that to me.
 
MichVandal said:
It’s my specific situation that is getting to me. BCBS is non profit. And they want more for themselves. No idea how that adds up.

I understand why single payer could be bad, though.

Universal care where more of our money goes to health care will fix a lot, regardless of single v multi payer. Seeing a public university hospital system argue with a non profit company where the patients are the real losers just confirms that to me.
Click to expand...
and there's another touch point right there. universities - there's no reason we need to put our doctors in such extreme debt to start their careers

nearly all single payer systems make life easier in every other way, too.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
and there's another touch point right there. universities - there's no reason we need to put our doctors in such extreme debt to start their careers

nearly all single payer systems make life easier in every other way, too.
Click to expand...
That’s another r thing that has happened, cutting education funding so much that nobody can afford to go. When I went to school in the 80s, my tuition at Idaho was $500/semester. A summer job covered that in a month of work. When I came to Michigan, I had major sticker shock, but it was paid for by someone else, thank donors.

But IMHO, the education problem is just another way to pay for tax cuts for people who can never actually spend the tax cuts they get.
 
MichVandal said:
That’s another r thing that has happened, cutting education funding so much that nobody can afford to go. When I went to school in the 80s, my tuition at Idaho was $500/semester. A summer job covered that in a month of work. When I came to Michigan, I had major sticker shock, but it was paid for by someone else, thank donors.

But IMHO, the education problem is just another way to pay for tax cuts for people who can never actually spend the tax cuts they get.
Click to expand...
and to bring it further along - my own degree - an advanced masters of science in epi - is likely no longer covered for federal loans as it will be classified as MPH, which, along with nursing, is now being used to not only dumb us down more but gut women from the workforce
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
did you not hear them talking yesterday? We are "underbabied"
Click to expand...

We are underwhitebabied.

This sounded better in the original German. Seriously. I'm sure it is a cool capitalized compound noun. Unterweißerbevormundung.

(OMG, it has the exact meter of the pseudo German at the beginning of "Pretty Fly for a White Guy.")

The White Nationalists are saying: "Not enough of us, way too many of them."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top