• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Publicly Subsidized Healthcare Means More Jobs & Economic Growth

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,498
Reaction score
8,165
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

In this video authour John Green talks about how publicly subsidized healthcare creates jobs and grows the economy by allowing people to instead of saving for out of pocket medical insurance they can spend on things that help economy and create jobs. It is really a fantastic video about healthcare and is the second part of a four part series which is still ongoing.
The other video can be found here and talk about the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. compared to every other developed country.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much ignores that people are having to pay more for what they already have as well, which in turn, gives them less to spend on other things like pizza.
 
Pretty much ignores that people are having to pay more for what they already have as well, which in turn, gives them less to spend on other things like pizza.

The other part can be explained in the other video where if have a system like public healthcare you can negotiate for lower costs.
 
The other part can be explained in the other video where if have a system like public healthcare you can negotiate for lower costs.

Strange that my insurance company's terms are 1) Take it or 2) Leave it.
 
Strange that my insurance company's terms are 1) Take it or 2) Leave it.

While in in a public health insurance scheme they can negotiate for lower prices because you can say to say a provider we can give you guaranteed access to customers like in Canada we can say to a company you have the guaranteed business of possibly 34 million people who will not buy form your competitors and all you have to do is make a a good product and at a lower price than your competitors. That is why countries with public healthcare spend far less money than the U.S..
 
While in in a public health insurance scheme they can negotiate for lower prices because you can say to say a provider we can give you guaranteed access to customers like in Canada we can say to a company you have the guaranteed business of possibly 34 million people who will not buy form your competitors and all you have to do is make a a good product and at a lower price than your competitors. That is why countries with public healthcare spend far less money than the U.S..

They subsidize it with public money without forcing people to pay it as a hidden tax; they limit salaries; and they restrict access via scheduling and pretend that everybody has equal access. "You have 6 months to live, but the good news is we can get your treatment accelerated. Just be back here in 8 months and we will begin"
 
Pretty much ignores that people are having to pay more for what they already have as well, which in turn, gives them less to spend on other things like pizza.

Premiums will go up or down in different region of the country dependent upon what was kind of health insurance was available there before. Some areas for instance had really cheap and basically useless policies that employers could provide employees, but like I said.....they were cheap. The incorporation of some mandatory minimum procedures or benefits is one example of what will cause premiums to increase in some areas of the country.
 
They subsidize it with public money without forcing people to pay it as a hidden tax; they limit salaries; and they restrict access via scheduling and pretend that everybody has equal access. "You have 6 months to live, but the good news is we can get your treatment accelerated. Just be back here in 8 months and we will begin"

Well France has no waiting times for surgery while in places like Canada it's organized by priority. So that person who has six months to live would be put to the front of the line.
 
Pretty much ignores that people are having to pay more for what they already have as well, which in turn, gives them less to spend on other things like pizza.

How can we be paying more when prices are FREE or CAPPED at 2 or 4% of income???? Funny how the RW keeps forgetting that.
 
How can we be paying more when prices are FREE or CAPPED at 2 or 4% of income???? Funny how the RW keeps forgetting that.

And you keep forgetting that nothing is free.

You do realize, that 'cap' is not applicable to everyone, right?
 
And you keep forgetting that nothing is free.

You do realize, that 'cap' is not applicable to everyone, right?

Medicaid under the ACA is free.

And for those that make over 400% of poverty.............SCREW THEM. They are the top 15% or so anyway.
 
And you keep forgetting that nothing is free.

You do realize, that 'cap' is not applicable to everyone, right?

Medicaid under the ACA is free.

And for those that make over 400% of poverty.............SCREW THEM. They are the top 15% or so anyway.
 
Medicaid under the ACA is free.

And for those that make over 400% of poverty.............SCREW THEM. They are the top 15% or so anyway.

You really have no comprehension of income levels, do you? Grossing $55000 is more than 400% of poverty, and that isn't rich, that's doing okay.

So you feel anybody who actually supports themselves and doesn't suck on the government teat should be screwed over, is that the gist?

How...humane... of you.
 
You really have no comprehension of income levels, do you? Grossing $55000 is more than 400% of poverty, and that isn't rich, that's doing okay.

So you feel anybody who actually supports themselves and doesn't suck on the government teat should be screwed over, is that the gist?

How...humane... of you.

$55k is plenty rich to me. OK is $30k.

What Gov teat? SNAP does not even let you wipe your behind. If you work a 20hr min wage job in AZ, you are cut off even from SNAP.
 
$55k is plenty rich to me. OK is $30k.

What Gov teat? SNAP does not even let you wipe your behind. If you work a 20hr min wage job in AZ, you are cut off even from SNAP.

True unless you count corn cobs, SNAP limits you to food items. ;)
 
$55k is plenty rich to me. OK is $30k.

What Gov teat? SNAP does not even let you wipe your behind. If you work a 20hr min wage job in AZ, you are cut off even from SNAP.

Rich to YOU. Now support a family of two or three on it.... When a person or family can support themselves without fearing their utilities will be cut off, or be without food and shelter, does not necessarily make them rich. They have taken personal responsibility to support themselves, and via taxes, support those that would turn and spit in their eye for it.

Well, one of those teats is the very subject you have trumpeted about. You keep screaming FREE... well, it ain't free. Someone is paying for it, but apparently just not you.

I don't know the stats, but there are many who do work min wage jobs, receive assistance be it SNAP, Medicaid, HUD assistance, etc, and those are a few more teats. There are a multitude of programs, most were meant to be temporary, not a way of life. But those who do make it a way of life, know from where the milk flows.
 
Rich to YOU. Now support a family of two or three on it....

...the poverty threshold scales with family size. So $55,000 wouldn't be 400% of the poverty line for a family of three. 400% FPL for a family of three is over $78,000. So only a family making more than that would be ineligible for financial assistance in one of the new marketplaces.
 
...the poverty threshold scales with family size. So $55,000 wouldn't be 400% of the poverty line for a family of three. 400% FPL for a family of three is over $78,000. So only a family making more than that would be ineligible for financial assistance in one of the new marketplaces.

Not all states have marketplaces.

My response in supporting a family of two or three on it was not in regards to the ACA, it was in regards to 274ina's statement that $55k is 'rich'.
 
Rich to YOU. Now support a family of two or three on it.... When a person or family can support themselves without fearing their utilities will be cut off, or be without food and shelter, does not necessarily make them rich. They have taken personal responsibility to support themselves, and via taxes, support those that would turn and spit in their eye for it.

Well, one of those teats is the very subject you have trumpeted about. You keep screaming FREE... well, it ain't free. Someone is paying for it, but apparently just not you.

I don't know the stats, but there are many who do work min wage jobs, receive assistance be it SNAP, Medicaid, HUD assistance, etc, and those are a few more teats. There are a multitude of programs, most were meant to be temporary, not a way of life. But those who do make it a way of life, know from where the milk flows.

Supprting a family is EASY on low wages, THEN you get housing, medicaid and even CASH from SNAP. if your single your scewed.......

HC is paid for by low general taxes all over the world. Someday it will come here. but the CEO must go first.

Min wage job gets NO SNAP, NO medicaid, NO HUD, so you dont know the really of the Street. Just the fantsy of USA media lies.

Go apply, learn the truth.
 
Supprting a family is EASY on low wages, THEN you get housing, medicaid and even CASH from SNAP. if your single your scewed.......

HC is paid for by low general taxes all over the world. Someday it will come here. but the CEO must go first.

Min wage job gets NO SNAP, NO medicaid, NO HUD, so you dont know the really of the Street. Just the fantsy of USA media lies.

Go apply, learn the truth.

No, supporting a family on low wages is not easy at all. Assistance exists because it's not easy.

Yes, minimum wage does get assistance in this state, perhaps not where you live. I fill out the paperwork for employees on a regular basis as part of my job.

Before you tout the wonders of UHC, try talking to those who actually have it before you believe the media lies. Some may like it, but the majority see it's major flaws.
 

In this video authour John Green talks about how publicly subsidized healthcare creates jobs and grows the economy by allowing people to instead of saving for out of pocket medical insurance they can spend on things that help economy and create jobs. It is really a fantastic video about healthcare and is the second part of a four part series which is still ongoing.
The other video can be found here and talk about the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. compared to every other developed country.


To the extent that every free market capitalistic economy needs some redistribution of wealth in order to reduce the pooling of money and keep money circulating and keep demand high, some sort of socialized healthcare or at least socialized health insurance is just one form of that redistribution.

So yes, it could be good for our economy, but it really doesn't matter that much what the form of redistribution is in, it could just as well be a higher minimum wage, or expanding the qualifications for low income housing assistance.

Of course the downside to any type of redistribution is when we means test it, thus tending to discourage individuals to make more money (assumably by becoming more productive), and locks people into poverty. This is where socialized healthcare or health insurance may actually be preferable to means tested foodstamps or low income housing assistance. it would be far easier for the government to simply provide every American with a "free" health insurance policy, than to provide every american with a free ebt card for food or a check in the mail each month for housing costs. As long as the guberment benefit isn't means tested, and everyone gets the exact same benefit, then there is no tendency to lock people into poverty or to discourage people from becoming more productive.

From an economic standpoint, it would be much better public policy to provide socialized health insurance or socialized healthcare to every American than it is to provide just the poor and lazy with means tested welfare.

Of course that does nothing to keep the cost of healthcare in check. To do that, there must be a first party payer component for every healthcare expense - in otherwords, small insigificant common and normal and expected healthcare costs should be at the expense of the consumer, and only larger, more rare, more economically devistating healthcare expenses should be covered by the insurance (thus keeping the cost of the insurance low to the taxpayer), and even then, the consumer should have to pay a percent of the total cost with no cap to out of pocket expense (to incentivize consumers to shop based upon costs). Thus, socialized insurance (where the guberment pays private insurance companies to provide everyone with a standardized major medical healthcare insurance policy) makes a lot better sense than socialized healthcare (where the guberment is the provider of healthcare).

I've presented this concept to my congressman before, and if (when) Obamacare fails, I will again be presenting this idea to my congressman.
 
To the extent that every free market capitalistic economy needs some redistribution of wealth in order to reduce the pooling of money and keep money circulating and keep demand high, some sort of socialized healthcare or at least socialized health insurance is just one form of that redistribution.

So yes, it could be good for our economy, but it really doesn't matter that much what the form of redistribution is in, it could just as well be a higher minimum wage, or expanding the qualifications for low income housing assistance.

Of course the downside to any type of redistribution is when we means test it, thus tending to discourage individuals to make more money (assumably by becoming more productive), and locks people into poverty. This is where socialized healthcare or health insurance may actually be preferable to means tested foodstamps or low income housing assistance. it would be far easier for the government to simply provide every American with a "free" health insurance policy, than to provide every american with a free ebt card for food or a check in the mail each month for housing costs. As long as the guberment benefit isn't means tested, and everyone gets the exact same benefit, then there is no tendency to lock people into poverty or to discourage people from becoming more productive.

From an economic standpoint, it would be much better public policy to provide socialized health insurance or socialized healthcare to every American than it is to provide just the poor and lazy with means tested welfare.

Of course that does nothing to keep the cost of healthcare in check. To do that, there must be a first party payer component for every healthcare expense - in otherwords, small insigificant common and normal and expected healthcare costs should be at the expense of the consumer, and only larger, more rare, more economically devistating healthcare expenses should be covered by the insurance (thus keeping the cost of the insurance low to the taxpayer), and even then, the consumer should have to pay a percent of the total cost with no cap to out of pocket expense (to incentivize consumers to shop based upon costs). Thus, socialized insurance (where the guberment pays private insurance companies to provide everyone with a standardized major medical healthcare insurance policy) makes a lot better sense than socialized healthcare (where the guberment is the provider of healthcare).

I've presented this concept to my congressman before, and if (when) Obamacare fails, I will again be presenting this idea to my congressman.

Watch his first video it talks about how socialized healthcare will bring costs down by having an entire country/state/province negotiate instead of one single person. That might convince your Congressman even more, just send him the videos.
 
Watch his first video it talks about how socialized healthcare will bring costs down by having an entire country/state/province negotiate instead of one single person. That might convince your Congressman even more, just send him the videos.

What I pitched before is that the guberment divide our population of citizens equally into 10,000 different demographically identical insurance groups, based upon the last four digits of our social security number (which are random and thus would result in nearly perfectly statistically identical groups). The insurance policy would be predefined and identical for every group. Then insurance companies could bid on the rights to administer the policy, with the lowest bidder being allowed to take as many groups as they chose, the next lowest bidder would be allowed to administer the policy at the same price that the lowest bider bid, for as many as they chose, then the next highest bider, so on and so forth until there are no more groups or bidders who chose to administer the policy at that price, at which time we then establish the second lowest bid price, offering the lowest bidder that price for as many groups as they would like, then the second lowest, third lowest, etc, until all the groups have insurance providers.

The government would pay the insurance companies directly, and if the insurance companies are able to administer the policies with a profit, they obviously get to keep the profit (which is of course their motivation in bidding and their reward for being efficient). Insurance companies would be given certain rights to police for insurance fraud, so that the taxpayer doesn't have to finance insurance fraud investigation. Every few years, the groups would be rebid.

The reason that I would prefer private companies to administer the insurance is because I believe that generally, private companies that have a profit motive are more efficient that guberment buerocracy. the other reason is political, so that insurance companies will be able to benefit from my plan, and would thus support it.

Now imagine being an insurance company that has the opportunity to bid on a group insurance policy for up to 310 million people, and with guaranteed payment for theirinsurance (if not guaranteed profits). I would think that they would be pretty darn competitive.

And imagine how much savings it would create in the insurance industry. No more need for major medical insurance salespeople or advertising. This alone would slash the overhead of an insurance company. And with every policy being identical, this would significantly cut out paperwork on the part of the insurance company, the insured, and even at the doctors office. We're looking at probably a 20% cut in the cost of our aggregate medical care right off the bat.

It's really everything that everyone wants. It's equal government benefits for every citizen, it's "universal" insurance (to satisfy liberals), and a huge cost savings (to satisfy republicans).

Best of all, all levels of government combined already spend $1.2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare, the total cost of my plan would most likely be far less than what we already spend, thus we could either cut taxes, or reduce the deficit, or simply rebate the savings back to every American in the form of a deposit to a HSA to help cover deductibles.

Also, imagine the burden that it would take off of employers to be able to avoid the cost of insuring their employees. They could pass this huge savings on to the employer in the form of a raise, or they could use the money to expand with and create more jobs, or whatever they deemed the best use for this money. Our economy would likely expand like crazy.
 
Back
Top Bottom