Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

235 Views
Message 31 of 48

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

 


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 


It's hard to sell universal health care to a group of people who only care about themselves, even if they themselves have government provided health care.


It is difficult to have such a discussion with those unable or unwilling to understand the difference between "earned" and "given". The above is a perfect example.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

233 Views
Message 32 of 48

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.


In reality, you last line should say, "ALL American get something paid for by SOME Americans".

 

There is nothing wrong with charity although it is better done through charitable institutions not via wealth redistribution by the government.

 

But if you want it done via wealth redistribution by the government, why not at least be honest about it and call for a "Poor HealthCare" - then instead of Medicare which people pay into you could use Medicaid which recipients do not pay into as a basis for your desires.


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 


You want Socialized Medicine. Fine, all I ask is that people thinking that way be honest and not try to make it sound like Medicare.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

229 Views
Message 33 of 48

"We're very, very lucky."

 

"We can go anywhere we want." (unlike HMOs in the U.S.)

 

"We don't need to be pre-approved by an insurance company."

 

"We can choose our own doctor."

 

Deductable? - "Huh?"

 

"On the whole, it's really a fabulous system."

 

"We make sure the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

233 Views
Message 34 of 48

There is a lot of talk in here about insurance costs, and support shown to back that up. Here are some thoughts you might want to think about. You get the cheapest insurance rates when everyone is insured. The rate setters for the Govt. and Insurance Cos. all use the same method to set rates. They know what % of the total number covered will have as losses from various causes each year, and yes it will vary some years higher, and some lower. They use loss reserves to account for that. That gives them the total amount in losses to be paid on average they then add in other costs like Admin., sales costs, profits. The reserves will be invested and produce a profit, and that is averaged and taken into account.

The 80% loss ratio talked about is by law in the ACA, and that leaves the Carrier 20% for all other. Before the ACA it was up to the carrier. I have seen 18% profit wanted. Commissions were be between 0 and 15% average. If a loss ratio went near 60% you looked at the group with an eye to a rate increase.

Medi Care is rated for about a 97% loss ratio, and 3% exp. ratio, and a support article tells all that. It goes on to talk about Medicare advantage which are private insurance plans. Medicare pays the Insurance Carrier what it cost medicare to provide coverage for a person. They then at the start paid the carrier an additional 15%. This was to be reduced over time to zero, and it has been cut some but is not zero. That means we all paid a higher Medicare fee so some could have the Medicare Advantage program. This was to be only a short time cost so the support article does not fully tell the story.

The part D drug coverage is a separate program and is rated as such since you can buy it or not. The support article leaves that out, and thus the article becomes bogus on the entire subject. You can make the part D a mandatory part of  the Medicare program and rate for it in the base rate if you want to, and yes the base rate would go up. You can cut the drug costs by allowing Medicare to get prices from the drug cos. directly, and allow generics to be more quickly offered. That would bring drug cost down to what you see in other countries around the world.

In closing Medicare is 97% loss ratio, 3% expense ration. I would suggest everyone take some time and learn about Medical Insurance. AARP in your local area should be able to help you as they have people who understand the subject. Yes I worked in the Health Insurance field. The biggest problem in fixing this problem is people not understanding it. Go understand it.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

230 Views
Message 35 of 48

@Richva wrote:

 


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 


It's hard to sell universal health care to a group of people who only care about themselves, even if they themselves have government provided health care.


"The only thing that man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history."
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

232 Views
Message 36 of 48

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.


In reality, you last line should say, "ALL American get something paid for by SOME Americans".

 

There is nothing wrong with charity although it is better done through charitable institutions not via wealth redistribution by the government.

 

But if you want it done via wealth redistribution by the government, why not at least be honest about it and call for a "Poor HealthCare" - then instead of Medicare which people pay into you could use Medicaid which recipients do not pay into as a basis for your desires.


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

237 Views
Message 37 of 48

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.


In reality, you last line should say, "ALL American get something paid for by SOME Americans".

 

There is nothing wrong with charity although it is better done through charitable institutions not via wealth redistribution by the government.

 

But if you want it done via wealth redistribution by the government, why not at least be honest about it and call for a "Poor HealthCare" - then instead of Medicare which people pay into you could use Medicaid which recipients do not pay into as a basis for your desires.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

231 Views
Message 38 of 48

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@RoyB381260 wrote:

#MedicareForAll will provide MANY MORE and MUCH IMPROVED BENENFITS FOR SENIORS .. and for every AMERICAN CITIZEN .. it will cut the enormous profits TAKEN by insurers before payimg for care for US. I am a INDEPENDENT and I will vote against the republicans that are trying to cut OUR MEDICAL .. SOCIAL SECURITY and other benefits WE desparately need.

PLEASE be extra vigilent and KNOW what is being proposed in Washington .


Medicare is only available to those who paid into it. Will that be the case with Medicare for all? If not, you have the wrong name.


OK. We will change the name to Healthcare-for-All and that will resolve your issue. 


The name does not effect it's essence - socialized medicine. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

243 Views
Message 39 of 48

American administrative costs for health care are the highest in the world,

 

Medicare for All would save money because Medicare's administrative costs are below those of private insurers.

 

National Health Expenditure data shows both the government’s administrative costs for Medicare and those of Medicare’s private plans.

 

Putting them together for the most recent year available (2016), they reach $47 billion, or 7 percent of total Medicare spending — well above the administrative costs borne directly by the Medicare program.

 

Both figures are well below private insurers’ administrative costs, which run about 13 percent of spending (this also includes profit), according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an advocacy organization for the industry.

 

Some critics have argued that Medicare’s administrative cost rate appears artificially low because Medicare enrollees’ health spending is so high. Average Medicare spending per beneficiary is just over $12,000 per year; for an average worker in a private plan, it’s about $6,000. If you simply divide administrative costs by total spending, you will get a lower number for Medicare for this reason alone.

 

This is true, but the government’s administrative costs for Medicare are still below those of private plans.

 

The government’s administrative costs are about $132 per person compared with over $700 for private plans.

 

One reason Medicare’s are so much lower is that it reaps economies of scale. It also benefits from not needing to do much marketing, and it doesn’t earn profits

 

Source - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/upshot/is-medicare-for-all-the-answer-to-sky-high-administrative-...

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: #MedicareForAll

246 Views
Message 40 of 48

@Olderscout66 wrote:

I think you've overlooked HOW the insurance company is able to make the payments using no more than 80% of the premiums collected - THEY INVEST.

Not sure about making Uncle Sam a portfolio manager, and SSTF and Medicare Trust Fund "Invest" in special Government securities with a LEGISLATED ROI.

Both those are included as part of the National Debt, and increasing that by the amount we spend each year on health insurance would probably be a "hard sell". Just having the citizens send Uncle Sam their premium checks then requires the Gov't to decide how/if coverage will change over time and if premiums need to be increased or decreased based on the cost of services.

What I suggested is pretty much how Germany does it.


I had not thought of investing the tax dollars and I like it. If they made me king, I would invest the money in existing mutual funds and take advantage of professional management.  Still, insurance companies make a profit and I see no place for them in Medicare-for-All.  I will have to look at the German system. 

Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors