Maryland Democrats Shocked to Learn Single-Payer Is Expensive

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,528
17,882
1,743
#1
Back in March, I wrote about Maryland Democrats talking up a single-payer system for health insurance, and how they were refusing to look too closely at how to pay for the plan, which would eliminate all out-of-pocket expenses for patients. They dismissed Vermont’s experience from a few years earlier, when a group of well-meaning, true-believing progressive Democrats tried to put together a plan . . . and reluctantly abandoned it when they realized that paying for it would require roughly doubling the entire state tax revenue. Oh, and the governor’s office calculated that the projected savings on health care costs added up to . . . 1.6 percent over five years.


This morning, the largest newspaper in the state, the Baltimore Sun, reports that Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services calculated that the state would have to levy a 10 percent payroll tax against every business and charge a $2,800 fee for every man, woman, and child in the state to raise the needed $24 billion a year.

This is pretty much what happened in Vermont. Democrats made the bold promises to voters that they would never have to worry about paying for health care ever again, promised to provide details later, won office, formed their commissions and study groups . . . and then when they actually had to translate their idea into a detailed plan, found themselves stunned by the costs and the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for it all.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/maryland-single-payer-health-care-expensive/
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,280
23,226
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#2
The costs associated with this should be as obvious as the sun rising at this point. It's almost as if these politicians are saying if we pass this single payer bill, the sun will rise in the west....and then are shocked when it doesn't.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,218
8,112
1,743
#3
Anyone wanna take bets on if this little social expirement is gonna work as well???

http://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-considering-trial-for-universal-basic-income-2018-7

Chicago could soon become the biggest US city to trial a universal basic income
Sinéad Baker

Jul. 18, 2018, 6:07 AM

Scott Olson/Getty Images

  • Universal basic income, a scheme which offers money to citizens with no strings attached, gaining traction in small pockets of the US and other countries.
  • Chicago City Council is being presented with a plan to trial giving 1,000 families $500 per month as a pilot scheme.
  • It would need to pass a committee phase and a vote before being put into practice.
  • 36 of Chicago City Council's 50 lawmakers have co-sponsored a bill, which could be a good omen.
  • If implemented, the scheme would make Chicago the largest US city to trial a universal basic income among its citizens.

Chicago could become the largest city in US to test a universal basic income programme, if its local government takes up a new proposal to start handing out $500 a month to some households for free.
City lawmakers have voiced support for legislation that would trial a basic income scheme for 1,000 families in Chicago.

A bill, proposed by Chicago lawmaker Ameya Pawar, has started the legislative process by gaining support from 36 of the city's 50 alderman, who vote on local laws.

Pawar spoke about his plan with news website The Intercept, where he said that he was proposing the scheme in light of the threat of automation to the workforce, and to provide a lifeline to the majority of US families he said have very little money in the bank for emergencies.

The legislation will now be debated by aldermen on the city's Committee on Workforce Development and Audit. If enough members are in favour of the plan, it will then be put before the City Council for a vote. Chicago law means the mayor could then veto the proposal if he doesn't approve, but that in turn can be over-ruled by a two-thirds majority in the council. Pawar told the Intercept he is hopeful that the council and mayor will support it, but it's not yet clear what the level of support will be. A universal basic income scheme is already in place in Alaska, where up to $2,000 is given to a citizen a year from a state fund. Other parts of the US are also looking to trial a universal basic income, with an 18-month trial to begin for 100 families in Stockton, California in 2019.

Finland began a universal basic income trial at the beginning of 2017 that gave 2,000 unemployed Finns €560 a month, tax free. There was a plan to expand it to cover working people as well, but the scheme was pulled in favour of other social welfare projects.








This has "failure" written ALL.OVER.IT! :derp:
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,352
6,399
1,743
Yukon, OK
#4
Anyone wanna take bets on if this little social expirement is gonna work as well???

http://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-considering-trial-for-universal-basic-income-2018-7

Chicago could soon become the biggest US city to trial a universal basic income
Sinéad Baker

Jul. 18, 2018, 6:07 AM

Scott Olson/Getty Images

  • Universal basic income, a scheme which offers money to citizens with no strings attached, gaining traction in small pockets of the US and other countries.
  • Chicago City Council is being presented with a plan to trial giving 1,000 families $500 per month as a pilot scheme.
  • It would need to pass a committee phase and a vote before being put into practice.
  • 36 of Chicago City Council's 50 lawmakers have co-sponsored a bill, which could be a good omen.
  • If implemented, the scheme would make Chicago the largest US city to trial a universal basic income among its citizens.

Chicago could become the largest city in US to test a universal basic income programme, if its local government takes up a new proposal to start handing out $500 a month to some households for free.
City lawmakers have voiced support for legislation that would trial a basic income scheme for 1,000 families in Chicago.

A bill, proposed by Chicago lawmaker Ameya Pawar, has started the legislative process by gaining support from 36 of the city's 50 alderman, who vote on local laws.

Pawar spoke about his plan with news website The Intercept, where he said that he was proposing the scheme in light of the threat of automation to the workforce, and to provide a lifeline to the majority of US families he said have very little money in the bank for emergencies.

The legislation will now be debated by aldermen on the city's Committee on Workforce Development and Audit. If enough members are in favour of the plan, it will then be put before the City Council for a vote. Chicago law means the mayor could then veto the proposal if he doesn't approve, but that in turn can be over-ruled by a two-thirds majority in the council. Pawar told the Intercept he is hopeful that the council and mayor will support it, but it's not yet clear what the level of support will be. A universal basic income scheme is already in place in Alaska, where up to $2,000 is given to a citizen a year from a state fund. Other parts of the US are also looking to trial a universal basic income, with an 18-month trial to begin for 100 families in Stockton, California in 2019.

Finland began a universal basic income trial at the beginning of 2017 that gave 2,000 unemployed Finns €560 a month, tax free. There was a plan to expand it to cover working people as well, but the scheme was pulled in favour of other social welfare projects.








This has "failure" written ALL.OVER.IT! :derp:
How does one test "Universal Basic Income" by limiting it to 1,000 families?? Seems like there's a LOT of side effects/consequences that wouldn't be seen since it wouldn't be "Universal".
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#7
Anyone wanna take bets on if this little social expirement is gonna work as well???




This has "failure" written ALL.OVER.IT! :derp:
Yep. UBI is a great idea. But, it is a poor idea to try at a city government level. It has already been testing many, many times in small populations and is nearly universally successful. More tests, particularly from an already bloated, corrupt, and bureaucrat city, would only be to doom the concept.
Would be sort of like Kansas City deciding they aren't happy with the Pentagon's methods of defense of the US and deciding to test out defense for Kansas City from foreign enemies. Just does not translate very well.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#8
Back in March, I wrote about Maryland Democrats talking up a single-payer system for health insurance, and how they were refusing to look too closely at how to pay for the plan, which would eliminate all out-of-pocket expenses for patients. They dismissed Vermont’s experience from a few years earlier, when a group of well-meaning, true-believing progressive Democrats tried to put together a plan . . . and reluctantly abandoned it when they realized that paying for it would require roughly doubling the entire state tax revenue. Oh, and the governor’s office calculated that the projected savings on health care costs added up to . . . 1.6 percent over five years.


This morning, the largest newspaper in the state, the Baltimore Sun, reports that Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services calculated that the state would have to levy a 10 percent payroll tax against every business and charge a $2,800 fee for every man, woman, and child in the state to raise the needed $24 billion a year.

This is pretty much what happened in Vermont. Democrats made the bold promises to voters that they would never have to worry about paying for health care ever again, promised to provide details later, won office, formed their commissions and study groups . . . and then when they actually had to translate their idea into a detailed plan, found themselves stunned by the costs and the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for it all.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/maryland-single-payer-health-care-expensive/
Remember everyone, the taxpayers of the US are already paying for universal healthcare. We just are not receiving it from our wasteful government. We pay virtually the same in public expenditures as all the countries that have universal care. In addition, we pay a lot more privately.


It isn't that we cannot afford universal health care. It is that we cannot afford universal health care in the non-transparent, money-grubbing health-care system that currently exists in the US.

The US has four options:
1. Keep riding this "system" until the costs get too extreme and it collapses. We are getting close currently. As a person with a very high income, all of the insurance plans available to me are so expensive that I do not have to worry about the Obamacare penalty because insurance is deemed not "affordable." Think about that, a high 6 figure income and insurance is out of my price range. That is not a sustainable system.
2. Get the government out of the healthcare business other than requiring price transparency. Get rid of employer-based coverage. Get rid of medicare. Minimal medicaid for only the poor at all ages. This might work but the problem is it will never happen. Far too much political opposition. Nowhere else does this.
3. Stop wasting taxpayer money covering a few selected groups in a dysfunctional system. Create a system that covers everyone using current tax spending, meaning it would be basic coverage. Then have the ability to pay privately (or insured) above that basic coverage. Pass a law that government spending on health care cannot be more than 8% of GDP to prevent mission creep.
4. Full single payer health care.

Option three is the most realistic. The issue is if we keep complaining about any alternatives and stick with #1 because we don't care because the employer pays it (a myth just like corporate income tax), we are more likely going to end up with #4 when the whole thing collapses.

I follow health spending pretty closely. IMHO, the stories of excessive bills have gone from occasional to common. More importantly, the response of healthcare entities to these stories has changed, No longer are they saying "That $20000 bill for a 2 hour visit was due to a system problem and the bill has been corrected." Now it is, "The bill is in line with current requirements and the patient did receive the billed services."
The industry knows this is going away and is pillaging every last dollar they can before it goes. They don't even bother to pretend to be reasonable anymore.
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,094
2,123
1,743
So Cal
#9
Yep. UBI is a great idea. But, it is a poor idea to try at a city government level. It has already been testing many, many times in small populations and is nearly universally successful. More tests, particularly from an already bloated, corrupt, and bureaucrat city, would only be to doom the concept.
Would be sort of like Kansas City deciding they aren't happy with the Pentagon's methods of defense of the US and deciding to test out defense for Kansas City from foreign enemies. Just does not translate very well.
It IS NOT a "great idea". It is socialism.

They want to give money to people because "they don't have any in the bank" (according to the Chicago article).

How about they STOP SPENDING, and put money in the bank - instead of taking it out of other people's pockets.

It is not a great idea - it's not even in line with our American heritage.

where has it been tested "many, many times successfully? (I looked it up and couldn't find any, except a few that were only tied to employment).

We already have unemployment programs, food stamps, income assistance, unearned tax refunds, and every other program under the planet.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,094
2,123
1,743
So Cal
#10
Remember everyone, the taxpayers of the US are already paying for universal healthcare. We just are not receiving it from our wasteful government. We pay virtually the same in public expenditures as all the countries that have universal care. In addition, we pay a lot more privately.


It isn't that we cannot afford universal health care. It is that we cannot afford universal health care in the non-transparent, money-grubbing health-care system that currently exists in the US.

The US has four options:
1. Keep riding this "system" until the costs get too extreme and it collapses. We are getting close currently. As a person with a very high income, all of the insurance plans available to me are so expensive that I do not have to worry about the Obamacare penalty because insurance is deemed not "affordable." Think about that, a high 6 figure income and insurance is out of my price range. That is not a sustainable system.
2. Get the government out of the healthcare business other than requiring price transparency. Get rid of employer-based coverage. Get rid of medicare. Minimal medicaid for only the poor at all ages. This might work but the problem is it will never happen. Far too much political opposition. Nowhere else does this.
3. Stop wasting taxpayer money covering a few selected groups in a dysfunctional system. Create a system that covers everyone using current tax spending, meaning it would be basic coverage. Then have the ability to pay privately (or insured) above that basic coverage. Pass a law that government spending on health care cannot be more than 8% of GDP to prevent mission creep.
4. Full single payer health care.
.
Did you forget FREE MARKET solutions? Eliminate medicare, implement vouchers, get the government out of healthcare, and let the markets take care of it. (maybe that was your #2, I'm not sure)

It costs less for some plastic surgeries than it does for a full physical - because the government props up the prices for one. Lasik eye surgery is practically affordable for everyone these days and got there essentially without insurance.

How about make medical school free for GP's, so that we get some price competition, and the DR's aren't strapped with huge student loan debt. Free medial school probably wouldn't cost that much in the big scheme of things.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#11
We already have unemployment programs, food stamps, income assistance, unearned tax refunds, and every other program under the planet.
Which is exactly the problem. Get rid of programs that require people to prove that they are poor and incompetent.
Otherwise, I never had the faintest fantasy that you would have any desire to even consider UBI other than to claim "socialism" and spout your normal diatribe about the free market fixing everything. I could try to explain to you that UBI could help the free market but there is absolutely no use. I'll save myself from the pages of useless bickering/condescending statements/unnecessary YELLING from you and say right now that we will just simply disagree on this.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#12
Did you forget FREE MARKET solutions? Eliminate medicare, implement vouchers, get the government out of healthcare, and let the markets take care of it. (maybe that was your #2, I'm not sure)

It costs less for some plastic surgeries than it does for a full physical - because the government props up the prices for one. Lasik eye surgery is practically affordable for everyone these days and got there essentially without insurance.

How about make medical school free for GP's, so that we get some price competition, and the DR's aren't strapped with huge student loan debt. Free medial school probably wouldn't cost that much in the big scheme of things.
If you can't comprehend that is nearly exactly what I said in #2, almost down to the wording, then that makes it much more understandable the way you react to nearly everything I post. But, great idea, never gonna happen. And, keep fighting for something that is never going to happen by supporting the horrible system we have now and we are going to end up with much worse. My opinion.

Free medical school is socialism, quite surprised that such a big government false solution would be advocated by you. Truth is, more doctors increase costs in the health care system, not decrease. Essential healthcare does not follow market economics because the customer generally follows the advice of the seller, particularly when there is third-party payment. Works great for Lasik, plastic surgery and other consumer-generated things. But, when the doctor tells you that you need a workup for Lupus and that workup involves 27 lab tests, very few people say, "No, I only need the first 10 lab tests, those others seem a bit too much." As a doctor, I wish it were different, but that is reality. The market can and should affect health, but it is going to be impossible to go from what we have now to a pure consumer system. Which is why I have changed my opinion and feel now that the basics should be universal then the consumer part comes in for the bells and whistles.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,094
2,123
1,743
So Cal
#13
Which is exactly the problem. Get rid of programs that require people to prove that they are poor and incompetent.
Otherwise, I never had the faintest fantasy that you would have any desire to even consider UBI other than to claim "socialism" and spout your normal diatribe about the free market fixing everything. I could try to explain to you that UBI could help the free market but there is absolutely no use. I'll save myself from the pages of useless bickering/condescending statements/unnecessary YELLING from you and say right now that we will just simply disagree on this.
gee whiz... you make a whole post of condescending statements about others being condescending?

What is wrong with you?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,094
2,123
1,743
So Cal
#14
If you can't comprehend that is nearly exactly what I said in #2, almost down to the wording, then that makes it much more understandable the way you react to nearly everything I post. But, great idea, never gonna happen. And, keep fighting for something that is never going to happen by supporting the horrible system we have now and we are going to end up with much worse. My opinion.

Free medical school is socialism, quite surprised that such a big government false solution would be advocated by you. Truth is, more doctors increase costs in the health care system, not decrease. Essential healthcare does not follow market economics because the customer generally follows the advice of the seller, particularly when there is third-party payment. Works great for Lasik, plastic surgery and other consumer-generated things. But, when the doctor tells you that you need a workup for Lupus and that workup involves 27 lab tests, very few people say, "No, I only need the first 10 lab tests, those others seem a bit too much." As a doctor, I wish it were different, but that is reality. The market can and should affect health, but it is going to be impossible to go from what we have now to a pure consumer system. Which is why I have changed my opinion and feel now that the basics should be universal then the consumer part comes in for the bells and whistles.
My comprehension is just fine. Thanks for your concern.

adding more GPs is a supply and demand thing, many, many GPs are leaving that practice and there is a shortage (which drives up cost and availability - what good is a "standard rate GP" if you can't get in to see them for 3 months? for example)

Free medical school is not really socialism, but it is government intervention, which is done all the time to "influence outcomes". I don't particularly like it, but I'd much rather our money go to something we need, than to pell grants for history majors or general studies, etc. It's called incentives, which is not really socialistic, where rewards are given for nothing.

It sounds to me like you're talking about TWO broken problems, insurance (availability), and healthcare.

I have only really commented on insurance availability (i.e., Obamacare, medicare, company sponsored, etc) and not on the healthcare that is provided.

Replacing medicare with free market solutions is really easy. Give the poor vouchers to allow them to select the health care plans that they want and need, and let the market place compete to offer plans to attract those voucher dollars.

Heathcare itself is horribly hit-n-miss, regardless of what kind of insurance you have.

With that said, from all accounts that I've seen, the healthcare in the US is far superior and far more available than most any other country.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#15
gee whiz... you make a whole post of condescending statements about others being condescending?

What is wrong with you?
I'm not being condescending. I'm speaking the truth about virtually every response you have ever made to me.

If there was anything that I could say that I thought would have a snowballs chance of changing your mind about a UBI I would discuss it with you. But, I am pretty dang sure there isn't. And, every time I discuss something with you I feel that you have berated me and the way you state your opinions as if they are cold hard facts over and over is frustrating. So, why would I do it?
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#16
With that said, from all accounts that I've seen, the healthcare in the US is far superior and far more available than most any other country.
Having worked in health care in the US for more than a decade, and in another country for 8 years and having worked with doctors and nurses from around the world, I can say confidently that is simply not true. There are things that healthcare in the US does well. And there are things that it does poorly. No way to claim universal superiority. Not even close. Other than the expense. And as far as availability, absolutely not true. I can give tons of examples.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,094
2,123
1,743
So Cal
#19
You don't seem to know what that word means.
or you don't.... you just keep on, and on, and on.

make outrageous comments and then get all Toxic Maxine on us when somebody has a different position.

don't respond to my posts if you can't handle challenges to you Marxist nonsense.

UBI is a horrible idea, and won't ever accomplish anything... single payer is just as bad and unamerican.

Since you cannot prove otherwise, and you prefer socialist solutions, try keeping your own advice and move on from my comments.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,251
30,732
1,743
Australia
#20
or you don't.... you just keep on, and on, and on.

make outrageous comments and then get all Toxic Maxine on us when somebody has a different position.

don't respond to my posts if you can't handle challenges to you Marxist nonsense.

UBI is a horrible idea, and won't ever accomplish anything... single payer is just as bad and unamerican.

Since you cannot prove otherwise, and you prefer socialist solutions, try keeping your own advice and move on.
Yea.... I'll respond when I want to respond. I'll stop responding when I want to stop responding. If "moving on" is your desire, then you are going to have to do it yourself. Mr Freedom can't even understand whose actions he gets to control.

You have been toxic since the first time you have ever responded to me on this board.
I'll be condescending now. Frankly, I've figured out that you aren't worth the time or effort to respond in a decent manner. Even in the past when I have attempted to agree with you it doesn't work. So, if you want to respond to my posts and I feel like wasting time responding to you, this is what you will get. In all the years here you are the only person I have never had a single constructive conversation with even when I have tried. I don't see that changing. Friedman and I can think UBI is what it is, and concrete thinking automatons can scream "Socialism! Marxism!" every time that a new idea is even discussed. To make it obvious, as I have to do to ever get you to see a point, I don't really care what you think about it. When it happens, and it will likely at some point, it will be above the screams of people like you sitting in your little bubble thinking you have it all figured out.