How can billionaires be so stoopid?

Both Howard Schultz and Michael Bloomberg said something really, really dumb this week, that shows they completely don't understand one of the central policy issues facing America, which is health care.

They both said M4A is unaffordable.

If they actually believe this - that trying to institute universal health care is something that we can't afford and will drive us to bankruptcy (as Bloomberg said) - they are, frankly, idiots.

It's a bit frightening.

And we should tax the hell out of them for no other reason than to keep their idiocy out of the public discourse.


M4A is expensive. So is the private system. We pay, either way.


I read that 3% of the government funds Medicare gets, are paid to run medicare. The rest, pays medical expenses. 


Private insurance has a capped expense of 18%. So you get executives like at United Healthcare with $20m pay and helicopters and what not. That doesn't pay for one band-aid.


Yes, the government bill would increase under M4A but private premiums would decrease or be eliminated. Everyone's tax bill should be increased to accommodate this. Such would be less of a problem if employers pass the lower insurance bill savings onto their workers... BIG IF.


Most importantly, no one would be in bankruptcy because of medical expenses. There would be no need for the GoFundMe request for help with medical expenses. 




Joanne, how does it work for you guys?


Formerlyjerseyjack said:

Joanne, how does it work for you guys?

There's a lot of reading, but this is probably as good a site as any to start with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Australia)


As the article notes further down the page, we Australians pay for the scheme through our taxes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Australia)#Funding_of_scheme


Along with Medicare, our prescription medications are also government-subsidised - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Benefits_Scheme


joanne will be able to explain it better..


Formerlyjerseyjack said:
M4A is expensive. So is the private system. We pay, either way.


Joanne, how does it work for you guys?

Other industrialized countries have some type of M4A. They manage without going bankrupt.

Yes, we pay either way. But M4A countries pay much less per capita, as the following story explains:

You have to compare what a universal system would cost to what we’re paying now.

Universal Healthcare For All

Below is a graph. Every country in that graph has universal coverage.

To repeat, every other country on that graph has universal coverage, the thing that people such as Bloomberg and Schultz believe is unaffordable. They do it in different ways — Great Britain has a single-payer system, while Germany has private but tightly regulated insurers — but they all cover everyone and, on average, they do it for half of what we spend.

Billionaires are for billionaires. They have their own agenda. The accumulation of vast wealth into their pockets.


One thing I've heard over and over is that universal healthcare can be done in those countries because they're smaller and therefore have less people to cover.  Um, yeah, they're smaller, which also means they have less taxpayers putting into the system.  We have more people to cover, but we also have more people to pay into the system.


spontaneous said:
One thing I've heard over and over is that universal healthcare can be done in those countries because they're smaller and therefore have less people to cover.  Um, yeah, they're smaller, which also means they have less taxpayers putting into the system.  We have more people to cover, but we also have more people to pay into the system.

Bs to trick people into being against universal healthcare. Plus the shibboleth of socialism and whatever else they can think of.

I just read that Corey Booker will be running for president. If its him against the Orange menace, then I'll vote for him. Anything is better than our Orange menace. But I will not support him in the primaries. He lost my vote when he voted against patients being allowed to buy drugs from Canadian pharmacies.


Sorry I couldn't answer earlier: I went to bed much earlier than usual, for once. 

Thank you, marksierra, for steering people in the right direction. I'm in a down mood, and feeling deeply cynical so please bear with me; what should be a very solid and supportive system has been so badly screwed with over the past few decades that it's about ready to topple over. Most Australians have little idea even though they were told at the outset of both Howard's and Abbott's governments that this was their intentions. It's painful to actually see it come about. 

The pharmaceutical, health and life insurance industries are meant to help support the Scheme by ensuring that doctors and hospitals continue to be funded. I'm not quite sure of the details, but they're also involved in shoring up the federal govt's allocations for research.

As was mentioned, we have subsidised meds and if you're on a low income (or you're a student, have a disability, Seniors card etc), you register for the 'safety net': once you've spent about $1000 (I think) or visited the pharmacy X times, all your meds for the rest of the year are free. 

But this is all for LISTED drugs: if you need something not on the public health benefit, you have pay privately, and that can leave you wide open to all kinds of rip-offs. Some treatments are off-label, so not covered (one of my migraine meds used to cost me $60/month, the rest were $5; my epipens were over $300 now they're free). I've just been told I have Crohn's disease and one way to treat this is with a chemo drug to reset my autoimmune system; because I don't have cancer, it might cost me a lot more than when D was treated for his bowel cancer (basically, we paid almost nothing for his treatment).

We also have subsidised patient transport for medical-related visits, through both hospitals and community transport schemes. These are funded dollar-for-dollar local govt to State govt, with added fund-raising through donations, and passengers pay low fares.

Every business and every citizen pays towards Medicare. Every State collects its share. There's always arguments over how the kitty is divided nationally and within the State's share, how that is apportioned yet generally most people can see a GP/family doctor for free or low cost, within a day or two. Surgical care is another matter - waiting lists are horrific. Allied health is inadequate (only 10 visits a year are subsidised, across all allied health so bad luck if you need physio, counselling, dental and a diabetes educator or an exercise physiologist or podiatrist etc) 

This is all meant to work in with other supportive systems such as National Disabitlity Insurance Scheme, Home Care Packages etc - systems set up to allow ageing and people with disabilities to have more dignity and choices. What's happened instead is that the political party in power originally set out to cripple Medicare, NDIS and HCP, then having got in power decided Medicare didn't need the $$$ for these folks since they had these supports - then they also underfunded NDIS (while making it harder to qualify and keep your paltry entitlement which was never meant to be about health stuff), and failed to account for the rising Grey Tide of HCP (what do you mean they don't have families to help??)

Sorry for the whinge. We don't understand how you can't support a universal health scheme, that's fairer and supportive. 


joanne said:
...
Sorry for the whinge. We don't understand how you can't support a universal health scheme, that's fairer and supportive. 

Unfortunately, it's all about slavery and giving "free"stuff to "those" people.

It underlies all social welfare legislation here.


Except it's not free. We ALL contribute. Via direct taxation, via the Goods and Services Tax on every item we buy and use. Also introduced under conservative governments. 


There's a sliding scale of access: if you want private insurance, and private control on who you consult/faster appointment times (somewhat debatable), you can have it. It's expensive, and the insurance companies work to keep it very high. 

If you can't afford to pay, you're rarely refused but you often have to wait depending what for (some things are deemed more important/urgent/necessary than others).


 We also have a very strong volunteer system that works together with the formal medical/primary care system, so that helps to lower community costs: our hospital vols support the hospital admin staff by greeting & showing visitors where to go, checking them into clinics etc; driving community & cancer/kidney transport; peer group exercises etc.


drummerboy said:


joanne said:
...
Sorry for the whinge. We don't understand how you can't support a universal health scheme, that's fairer and supportive. 
Unfortunately, it's all about slavery and giving "free"stuff to "those" people.
It underlies all social welfare legislation here.

It has very little to do with social welfare and everything to do with protecting profits for healthcare companies (insurance, pharma, device) and salaries for providers. Whether I pay 1000 a month in premiums or 1100 in taxes doesn’t really matter to me. If I own 10% of Aetna? Yeah - it matters. 


to me, that’s stupid thinking though: they invest in hospitals, equipment, pharma so they get paid whether not people are sick or well. What does matter is a city or nation so clogged with people with miserable unproductive people that it’s unprofitable, filthy, and ineffective or it’s clean, everyone’s content and productive, striving to do better and help others, other people want to visit & learn, and we find ways to renew our resources and shared interests (this is the lesson of history). 


RobB said:



It has very little to do with social welfare and everything to do with protecting profits for healthcare companies (insurance, pharma, device) and salaries for providers.

 --- and it costs those companies a lot of money in bribes (campaign contributions) to protect those profits. --Thank you, Sen. Booker.


Here's some billionaires lying about Medicare for All:


And special billionaire moron bonus: Michael Dell displays his entitlement and total ignorance of history and economics. 


We are rewarded by the federal govt for taking out private health insurance: more favourable income tax rebates, a subsidy on the health insurance (depending on the type, and on when you join), I think there are also some extras for your superannuation if you keep the health insurance for a certain number of years.

A very large number of Australians won’t use the public health system (they’re elitist). 

So, ‘Medicare for all’ isn’t actually paying for all. And those of us who can afford to pay for services, pay what we can afford - not everyone is bulkbilled or gets their services free. 

It’s about access and reassurance, not punitive restriction because you vote ‘the wrong way’.


Nice to see no envy or resentment here


All of these studies that say M4A would be cost prohibitive and toss out huge numbers in the trillions have a fatal flaw.  They don't take into account the money we and our employers won't be spending on private insurance premiums.  Converting those premiums into a payroll tax would pay for M4A.  Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would bring their costs way down.  


terp said:
Nice to see no envy or resentment here

 Criticism of excessive wealth and massive wealth disparity does not require envy or resentment. Almost everyone who posts on MOL is OK financially. We just have empathy for those who are not and believe their plight results in part from that growing inequality.

You are strongly opposed to War. I don't assume that you're just afraid of being drafted.


joanne said:
to me, that’s stupid thinking though: they invest in hospitals, equipment, pharma so they get paid whether not people are sick or well. What does matter is a city or nation so clogged with people with miserable unproductive people that it’s unprofitable, filthy, and ineffective or it’s clean, everyone’s content and productive, striving to do better and help others, other people want to visit & learn, and we find ways to renew our resources and shared interests (this is the lesson of history). 

 Huh?


terp said:
Nice to see no envy or resentment here

 Envy or resentment at what? I'm just calling out the stupid.

There may be a lot of concerns surrounding establishing a national health care system in the U.S., but affordability is not one of them - much less is it the chief concern that these two clowns think it is.

Unless you think they're correct, in which case, have at it.


drummerboy said:
 Envy or resentment at what? I'm just calling out the stupid.

There may be a lot of concerns surrounding establishing a national health care system in the U.S., but affordability is not one of them - much less is it the chief concern that these two clowns think it is.

Unless you think they're correct, in which case, have at it.

They're not stupid. Bloomberg is extremely intelligent and very well versed in economics. When the economy was tanking he managed to leverage his wealth from 4 to 30 billion while also serving as mayor on NYC. His current worth is around 50 billion.

As I pointed out in my previous post, billionaires have their agendas. The stupid ones are those who believe when told that M4A will bankrupt us.


RobB said:


joanne said:
to me, that’s stupid thinking though: they invest in hospitals, equipment, pharma so they get paid whether not people are sick or well. What does matter is a city or nation so clogged with people with miserable unproductive people that it’s unprofitable, filthy, and ineffective or it’s clean, everyone’s content and productive, striving to do better and help others, other people want to visit & learn, and we find ways to renew our resources and shared interests (this is the lesson of history). 
 Huh?

 The health insurance companies and their investors will be paid whether we're sick/injured or well; it's a rigged system, if you will. (We've just had a Royal Commission investigating financial services in this country, report handed down last week. The subject was tangentially touched on and recommended for further investigation)

In effect they control the formation of government health policies in the same way the gun & hunting lobbies do for their special interests. 


terp said:
Nice to see no envy or resentment here

Extreme inequality is bad for society. I'm not envious because it would be just as bad for society if it were me that was the billionaire.


Of course it would be better for me personally. But if I were to put that ahead of every other consideration I would be greedy.


BG9 said:


drummerboy said:
 Envy or resentment at what? I'm just calling out the stupid.

There may be a lot of concerns surrounding establishing a national health care system in the U.S., but affordability is not one of them - much less is it the chief concern that these two clowns think it is.

Unless you think they're correct, in which case, have at it.
They're not stupid. Bloomberg is extremely intelligent and very well versed in economics. When the economy was tanking he managed to leverage his wealth from 4 to 30 billion while also serving as mayor on NYC. His current worth is around 50 billion.
As I pointed out in my previous post, billionaires have their agendas. The stupid ones are those who believe when told that M4A will bankrupt us.

 Ah, so you think Bloomberg is just lying to us rubes?

BTW - on what basis do you say he's well versed in economics? Making money has about nothing to do with economics.


Health and Human Services is now going after the pharm. middle-men. That may achieve something in our favor.


nan said:
Here's some billionaires lying about Medicare for All:




And special billionaire moron bonus: Michael Dell displays his entitlement and total ignorance of history and economics. 


I couldn't get through the 2nd video as this Kulinski grates rather heavily on my nerves.  However, there are serious factual errors in that first video.   I would read the study he refers to.  He either did not read the study, or is openly lying to his audience. 


drummerboy said:


terp said:
Nice to see no envy or resentment here
 Envy or resentment at what? I'm just calling out the stupid.

There may be a lot of concerns surrounding establishing a national health care system in the U.S., but affordability is not one of them - much less is it the chief concern that these two clowns think it is.

Unless you think they're correct, in which case, have at it.

 

drummerboy said:
And we should tax the hell out of them for no other reason than to keep their idiocy out of the public discourse.

 

I think the idea that handing over healthcare to the federal government is going to be peachy is kind of hilarious.  

The federal government is good at killing and blowing people up.  The other stuff we hand control over to them?  Not so much.  

What you tent to get is a large number of bureaucrats, quite a bit of $$ being pushed into areas of the economy to little or the opposite effect.   

Healthcare to this point has been a disaster.  It's incredibly expensive, there is graft, there is no effective pricing, there are incentives to increase prices regardless of value unlike at a fee based surgery center where procedures tend to cost 1/6 to 1/10th of a "not for profit" hospital. 

Education where we spend more $$ per student than just about anywhere in the history of man kind to, and I'm being very generous here, fair to middling results.  Since the federal government has decided to make secondary education more affordable, we have young people in serious debt with degrees that are unlikely to enable them to repay this debt. 

In an effort to make housing more affordable, housing prices went through the roof.  When they crashed, they nearly took the entire financial economy with them.   These same mechanisms to make housing more affordable was then used in an attempt to increase housing prices.   And the federal government and the federal reserve went on to bail out rich people. 

I don't understand the logic that says: healthcare has become more and more problematic as the government has gotten more involved.   Let's turn the whole thing over to them!   


tom said:


terp said:
Nice to see no envy or resentment here
Extreme inequality is bad for society. I'm not envious because it would be just as bad for society if it were me that was the billionaire.


Of course it would be better for me personally. But if I were to put that ahead of every other consideration I would be greedy.

You want a policy that will take the property from other people in an effort to achieve some goals that you prefer.   Is there a word for that?  Covetous maybe?


Abstract for the UMass study, released in November and referred to in the first video above, of the 2017 Medicare for All Act:

This study by PERI researchers Robert Pollin, James Heintz, Peter Arno, Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Michael Ash presents a comprehensive analysis of the prospects for a Medicare for All health care system in the United States. The most fundamental goals of Medicare for All are to significantly improve health care outcomes for everyone living in the United States while also establishing effective cost controls throughout the health care system. These two purposes are both achievable. As of 2017, the U.S. was spending about $3.24 trillion on personal health care—about 17 percent of total U.S. GDP.  Meanwhile, 9 percent of U.S. residents have no insurance and 26 percent are underinsured—they are unable to access needed care because of prohibitively high costs. Other high-income countries spend an average of about 40 percent less per person and produce better health outcomes. Medicare for All could reduce total health care spending in the U.S. by nearly 10 percent, to $2.93 trillion, while creating stable access to good care for all U.S. residents.

PDF of the study:

https://www.peri.umass.edu/economists/jeannette-wicks-lim/item/download/805_42f6acc20a83c79049e68b270e30ee43

Where the $5.1 trillion savings figure comes from in that study:

Following from our estimates, Health Consumption Expenditures would fall to 15.8 per- cent of GDP under Medicare for All, as of the 2017 economy. This would represent a dramat- ic decline in health care spending as a share of GDP for the U.S., but would still be substan- tially higher than the figures for all other large advanced economies. We conclude that further incremental improvements in service delivery under Medicare for All should enable U.S. health care costs to stabilize at around 15.8 percent of GDP, even after taking account of the rising cost pressures resulting from an aging population.

Based on these results, we can then develop a 10-year forecast of Health Consumption Expenditures under Medicare for All, and compare this forecast with the projection by CMS of Health Consumption Expenditures assuming that the U.S. continues operating under its existing health care system. We find that, over the decade 2017 – 2026, the cumulative savings through operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP.

I thought this was sorta cute.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!