per capita income.

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Beaconator, Mar 11, 2019.

  1. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    What would be wrong with resetting the worlds per capita income to 100,000 dollars. And 100,000 to be used only for healthcare. Allowing corporations to keep their earnings and offering the poor and unfortunate a way out. I can immediately see the lottery statistics where people end up in the same boat. But healthcare would be paid so small care centers could thrive with their local operations and take the overwealming numbers off larger hospitals.

    I think its time we started talking about global economics as it is the major factor of peace.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,156
    So no one would be able to afford housing, food or transportation? Nothing but healthcare? I can see healthcare providers liking that - but no one else.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    How would you not be able to afford things with more money. You wouldn't even have to print any of it just attach it to a bank account or social security number.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,685
    Well let see. Your income is 100,000. You have pay 100,000 for health care. That would mean you have no money left after paying for health care. Understand?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    But you are identifying the wrong culprit.

    Health Care providers are the hands on caregivers. The doctors, nurses, medical techs, etc.

    The waste goes to "administrative expenses" . If the administrative expenses are provided by for-profit corporations, the equation changes to Health Care plus Profit, and that cannot work without strict regulation.

    OTOH, if the administrative expenses are provided by not-for profit corporations, then all moneys are applied to services and purely administrative costs. A not-for-profit single payer Health Care system would save Billions of dollars!!

    p.s. often forgotten, governments are supposed to be not-for-profit public service organizations.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,156
    All true. It does not change the math that 100,000 - 100,000 = 0.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    I agree. But take the administrative profit out of the equation and the cost becomes 100,000 - 50,000 = 50,000 for your discretionary use.

    For-profit Insurance companies are currently controlling a large portion of Health Care costs.
    Take out the profit, just pay administrative clerical salaries. Saves Billions!

    I like some of the new proposed plans.

    Every person with income pays a 2-3% of their income into a Medicare for All. This would more than fund a single payer healthcare system.

    If the objection is that very wealthy people would pay disproportionally more one could remind them that Tax cuts and COLA (cost of living adjustments) are also applied as percentage of income, to the great advantage of the wealthy.

    A 2% COLA increase gives a 2.00 raise for every 1oo earned and a 2000 raise for every 100,000 earned.
    All to adjust for say, a 500 dollar actual "cost of living" increase!

    In reality this not a "cost of living increase", it is a "cost of lifestyle increase", no?

    I believe all these problems can be presented as exponential growth functions. That way long-term growth factors can be translated into real numbers and future projections, rather than to say..."oooops, what happened?......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .... and "another trillion bites the dust".
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,065
    i think he meant 100k to do with as you want, plus another 100k specifically for healthcare.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,156
    So who creates treatment plans? Who decides on when to replace the MRI machine with a 3 tesla version? Who decides on which contrast to use? Who goes out to find and hire new doctors? Who gets hospitals built? Who decides what care people get, and when they get it?

    It's all well and good to say "get rid of the wasted administrative profit!" - but that's not very practical in reality. You need good doctors, good administrators, good facilities managers, good CFO's etc.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    Doctors and Nurses, what do you expect? Nothing changes except you cut out the for-profit Insurance company
    No, you misunderstand.

    Does Medicare have good doctors, administrators, hospitals ? Everyone contributes to Medicare. no?
    The reason Medicare is successful is that it is a not-for profit system, and currently it does not cover 100% and except for disability, the benefits are restricted to a specific age-group.

    So the "supplemental" is a for-profit company and your healthcare money, instead of paying a doctor for services, you pay some stockholder of the insurance company or it gets distributed as CEO bonuses at the end of the year.

    Administration is not a waste of money, for-profit administration of HealthCare is a waste of money. It becomes a contest of Profit v Healthcare and IMO, healthcare and profit are mutually exclusive. Healthcare is not a commodity to be sold for a profit.

    Cut out the Insurance Company and use the government Health and Welfare administrative services. They are competent and don't charge cost plus profit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019 at 7:43 PM
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,210
    Somebody other than a for-profit insurance company bureaucrat who is not accountable for outcome. That's the worst alternative - and the one we have now.
    It's standard in 33 First World systems with better outcomes than the US. The US system is 40% wasted overhead. Possibly even counter-productive overhead.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,156
    A government bureaucrat who is not accountable for outcome - AND won't be fired for screwups because he's in the government union? Seems worse, not better.

    Doctors and nurses run HR? Going to be a very expensive healthcare system you have there.
    That's where we differ. The reason we spend exorbitant amounts on HIV drugs is that eventually someone will pay exorbitant amounts FOR HIV drugs. A government healthcare system might well decide "putting that money towards heart disease rather than HIV care will save more people, so let's abandon HIV treatment. For the good of everyone."

    Fortunately that didn't happen. And today we have people living normal lives with HIV. We've even managed to cure it completely in at least one case.
    Nor is it a government service to be apportioned, like money to fix potholes.
     
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,418
    Absolutely. Your starting point is probably an okay concept; you just need to think it through more completely before putting it into words.
    The OP is a tad confusing.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,210
    It's better - he wouldn't have anything to gain by screwing you over.
    And that is the worst alternative case. The more likely would be what we see in the dozens of working systems.
    People who have the money will also pay exorbitant amounts of it for insulin, and catheters, and epipens - if that's the only way they get to live. That's no explanation.
    Thanks to government paid health care - what we do have of it.
    So might anyone making the decision. Foolishness and error are not monopolized by governments.
    It works better that way, though - if you insist on that as the only alternative.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,418
    Nothing will ever work efficiently as long as you have a mix of public (general welfare) institutions mixed with private (profit) enterprise.
    Government agencies allocate funds according to good or bad priorities - you can't tell which they're doing at any given moment. No administrator can plan or budget ahead while every election changes the rules under which they operate and what funding they get, and private companies set the price of everything: hospital equipment, the rent a local clinic pays, hypodermics needles, construction, emergency vehicles, medicines, laundry service, rubber gloves... everything. Two systems with such different agendas can never mesh without problems, mistakes - and redundancy.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    Since when are government employees incompetent or not motivated to perform?
    What are you talking about? Nothing changes from what it is now but the administrative costs are not handled by for -profit administrative services. They are handled by not-for profit administrative services so that all non-essential costs can be applied to patient care and nor line the pockets of insurance executives. Billions of dollars!
    That sounds absolutely macabre. Have you ever been denied healthcare insurance for a pre-existing condition and who made that decision? For profit insurance companies, not any medical or government employee. They drive the cost of all medical services to the highest healtcare cost of any health care system in the world.
    Explain to me why I can get American made drugs cheaper in Canada than here in the US?
    Guess what makes the difference......profit incentives. It is that simple.
    What a bizarre outlook on government services you have. Who would make such a decision? Trump or a Dr? Are you familiar with the Medical field, health care? I am. I was a medical biller working for a county hospital. I received a salary for the work I did. No outsourcing of medical billing to for-profit administrative services. The Hospital was a county hospital, it did not make a profit.
    Why would it?
    Yes, because Doctors, not health insurance companies made the medical decisions. There is a difference between "medical services" and "administrative services. Medical services are provided by health-care practitioners for standard medical fees, just like today. Administrative services should be provided by non-profit administrative services.
    Are you equating fixing potholes with Healthcare? The right to have pot-holes fixed is the same as the "right to life and pursuit of happiness"?

    Actually we pay road taxes and the County fixes the roads. The profit is made only by the equipment manufacturers who were the low bidders on competing bids for heavy equipment. The county does not have a toll-booth next to the potholes where everyone driving over the newly repaired road needs to pay a toll. You have already paid your road taxes.
    But that is how, in effect, our healthcare system works now. You get your health care and then you have to pay your insurance provider and keep their stock holders happy.

    Health Care and Profit are mutually exclusive. Every dollar that is not wasted on profit can be applied to actual hands on health care.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019 at 3:04 AM
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    That's blackmail!
    Did we not just have an example of some guy buying the rights to an HIV drug and reselling the drug with a 5000% profit? I think he was just convicted of illegal business practices.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243938/Ex-hedge-funder-32-hated-man-internet-defends-jacking-prices-AIDS-medication-5500.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019 at 3:20 AM
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,156
    Neither does the corporate guy. You said he's not accountable.
    Agreed. Solution - take essential medications/treatments off patent more quickly.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,156
    So is "you have to pay taxes or you go to jail." So is "you have to pay lots of money for a car or you can't get to work." So is "you have to pay money or you can't eat."

    Capitalism is a lousy way to apportion critical services like food, transportation, housing and health care. It's merely better than any other way people have tried.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    a) Taxes pay for military and communal services, like waste treatment plants.
    b) Unless there is another car dealer in town, no?
    c) No it isn't. If you are too poor (for a legitimate reason) you qualify for Food stamp assistance.
    Hear, hear!
    For profit prisons is a terrible concept and wholly opposed to human values, IMO.
    Not in Health Care! We're 40th in the world, well behind every modern European country. Hardly a good report card.
    Our infrastructure is abysmal. Half of the money spent on infrastructure goes to waste in profits.

    Exactly, common social services should be provided by a common not-for-profit social services system.
    You want luxury, you're welcome to pay any amount for any service, as long as you also meet the more modest obligatory contribution to the general social welfare.

    Health Care is not a choice of a preferred elective service from among a host of services. Everyone will be subject to Health Care at some time in their lives.

    The most efficient system is; If you contribute to the common healthcare pot, you are entitled to health care services when needed, simple. The not-for-profit medical facilities submit a medical bill to Dept H&W for reimbursement. Everyone who pays gets adequate service. Everyone who provides adequate service gets paid.
    Why should profits be necessary in such a social umbrella for universal Health Care?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019 at 4:16 AM

Share This Page