From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Info Seeker
0
Kudos
251
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

251 Views
Message 1 of 126

No, Medicare for All is part of the Green New Deal which will cost an estimated $93 Trillion Dollars or $600,000 per household! Bottom line, I have AARP United Health Care, which I find is quite good. However, you and I have paid into Medicare for over 50 years. Do you think, as a senior citizen, that you medical care or medical procedures will be the same under Medicare for All? 

I think that the AARP should represent Seniors...period. What do you think?

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
251
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
398
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW !

398 Views
Message 2 of 126

Did you mean to say "save" 32 trillion rather than cost that much? The reason I say that is:

 

Medicaid is one of the largest budget items in our federal budget. Medicare For All eliminates it.

 

The largest budget item in any state budget is Medicaid. Medicare For All eliminates that.

 

Companies that provide employee health insurance will still pay for it. However, what they pay will be cut by 50% and they will no longer be burdened with providing it.

 

I could go on and on on savings, but I will say one thing on cost.

 

Medicare For All is "Single-Payer" health insurance. That Single-Payer means there are no free loaders. A Medicare paycheck deduction is used to "make" each individual pay for that health insurance. From our poorest to our richest, no exceptions.

 

Did you mean to say "save" 32 trillion rather than cost that much? I can see huge savings. What costs?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
398
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
420
Views

Re: Three Pinochios - Democrats Seize On Cherry-Picked Claim that "Medicare for All" Would

420 Views
Message 3 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

Here are some things going on in the present system:

 

1. Story in press today about a person who had 2 MRI in three years at the same hospital. First one cost over $300.00. Little over one year later the same MRI at the same hospital cost over $3,000.00. Why? Insurance co said it had discount on the 1st one with the outside provider who did the work. The outside provider was gone for the 2nd one and the Hospital did it with its own people. Does this make sense? No. Hospitals have no idea on pricing indv. services. They accept Medicare pricing, and will accept that under a medicare for all as required by law.

 

2. Local hospital in large eastern city was purchased by a Health System in middle of the state. The hospital employees got their new medical insurance program from the new owners. There were no in network Dr. or Hospitals (including their own) offered in the area. Nearest was over 50 miles away. Insurance Carrier used another network in the new area so can not include them as in network unless they allow all of the insureds they have in the area to have the same benefit. (There is a union so the employees will come out ok in the end.)

 

This is how Health Systems think most of the time. I saw one merger in our largest city take a once good system just about into bankruptcy before selling it. It is now fine. You see 2 examples of why the Govt. has to be involved to  counter a totally market driven system.

 

As for drug prices I have 2 words to say: RED BOOK. If you know the drug system you know what I am talking about.

 


1.  Makes sense to me since different diagnostic providers have different cost concerns and different cost - overhead.  Insurance companies negotiate the price of services by provider.  Just like in Medicare - traditional or Medicare Advantage - If a person goes to a provider that does not accept assignment or is out of network - they do not have to accept such payment - In the traditional program, there are doctors that accept assignment, there are non-participating providers, and there are private contract providers (between the beneficiary and the doc).  Going out of network in a Medicare Advantage plan could also add cost and out of pocket to a beneficiary.

 

2.  Thought that was against the law in many states.  States that are suppose to review the depth and breadth of any network created for specific areas.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-carriers-and-access-to-healthcare-providers-network-ad...

 

However, it is a problem BUT it is also the choice of the beneficiary (or employee) to accept or deny inadequate coverage of whatever type within a plan - individual health plan or an employer based plan.  Union or no - people can handle this by walking or going to their state Insurance dept.

 

Yes, Insurers will try to lower their cost any number of ways but in turn, should offer lower premiums.

Take the "Medicare Select" supplemental plan in traditional Medicare - yes, some of these providers are located miles and miles away.  Unlike regular Medigap plans that provide coverage for approved services performed anywhere that accepts Medicare, Medicare SELECT policies are more restrictive.Under the Medicare Select supplemental plan, insurance provider pre-determines a network of hospitals, medical offices, and medical providers. You must get treatment from those approved facilities, or your Medicare SELECT policy won’t help pay for your treatment.

Medicare SELECT policy versions are available in most states under many of the approved Medigap plans. Other than the restrictions placed on which medical facilities you may use, Medicare SELECT policies must meet all other regulations required by the standardized Medigap plans.

Medicare SELECT policies generally cost less than other standardized Medigap policies.

That is the reason for this type of coverage - it saves the beneficiary premium cost - it is up to them if it is feasible or if the cost savings balances out the (travel) inconvenience.

 

There are a lot of color coded books out there for medicine, their therapeutic uses and details about them - their suggested retail price maybe one of them but none of them actually evaluate price when determining therapeutic hierarchy - this should be done in the approval process at the FDA.   Which one is good, better, best when comparing them one to the other - medicine to medicine or even medicine to other treatment options.

 

We also need to have a way to force pharmaceutical companies to expand their usage of a particular medication especially when such off-label use has been proven and is cheaper - or they have a patent time limit placed on the expensive one or some such punitive action.

Example: Battle of the Eye Drugs: Lucentis v. Avastin

 

Yes, we have lots of problems in our healthcare system - it is not just one thing.

 

 

 

 

 


1. Looks like you need to reread what I posted. The MRI was for the same thing, using the same equipment, in the same location. The only difference was the person operating the equipment. The rest of what you posted has no bearing on what I am talking about.

2. Looks like you thought wrong. Your support article has nothing todo with what I posted. If is a perfect example of why people should not go to the Internet and look for articles before they understand a subject.

3. People in the drug industry know the RED Book well and how it functions, or I will say used to function.

There was no attempt by an insurance Co. to lower its costs as the Insurance co did nothing wrong in this case. Reread my post and you will see who made the mistake.

The rest of your post has no bearing to what I pointed out, and you seem to be bringing in a lot of things that mean nothing to the problem. Medicare Select would not have changed a thing here.

 

Yes we do have lots of problems with our total health care system, and to improve the system you need to lay out the total system, and that means people have to understand the total system so they can put forth good ideas.

 

Here is another area of the total system. Most cities run the para medic area through the fire dept. In my city they are dispatched by the 911 system. Send one para medic unit, and one fire engine per call. In a lot of places this service is called the street people medical service as many just get service from the para medic and are not taken to the hospital. It is very expense to operate. One large city has 2 fire stations who are over what they can handle every day. The City is looking at adding a smaller unit, and not sending a fire engine on each call. The city says it can tell the difference when a call is received. By doing this it will save the city money in the fire budget, but it is really a health system cost. There are all sorts of items like this in health care, and you have to look at all costs so you do not cost shift like a lot of people who do not understand the system do when they put forward ideas not based on real total fact.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
420
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
446
Views

Re: Three Pinochios - Democrats Seize On Cherry-Picked Claim that "Medicare for All" Would

446 Views
Message 4 of 126

@john258 wrote:

Here are some things going on in the present system:

 

1. Story in press today about a person who had 2 MRI in three years at the same hospital. First one cost over $300.00. Little over one year later the same MRI at the same hospital cost over $3,000.00. Why? Insurance co said it had discount on the 1st one with the outside provider who did the work. The outside provider was gone for the 2nd one and the Hospital did it with its own people. Does this make sense? No. Hospitals have no idea on pricing indv. services. They accept Medicare pricing, and will accept that under a medicare for all as required by law.

 

2. Local hospital in large eastern city was purchased by a Health System in middle of the state. The hospital employees got their new medical insurance program from the new owners. There were no in network Dr. or Hospitals (including their own) offered in the area. Nearest was over 50 miles away. Insurance Carrier used another network in the new area so can not include them as in network unless they allow all of the insureds they have in the area to have the same benefit. (There is a union so the employees will come out ok in the end.)

 

This is how Health Systems think most of the time. I saw one merger in our largest city take a once good system just about into bankruptcy before selling it. It is now fine. You see 2 examples of why the Govt. has to be involved to  counter a totally market driven system.

 

As for drug prices I have 2 words to say: RED BOOK. If you know the drug system you know what I am talking about.

 


1.  Makes sense to me since different diagnostic providers have different cost concerns and different cost - overhead.  Insurance companies negotiate the price of services by provider.  Just like in Medicare - traditional or Medicare Advantage - If a person goes to a provider that does not accept assignment or is out of network - they do not have to accept such payment - In the traditional program, there are doctors that accept assignment, there are non-participating providers, and there are private contract providers (between the beneficiary and the doc).  Going out of network in a Medicare Advantage plan could also add cost and out of pocket to a beneficiary.

 

2.  Thought that was against the law in many states.  States that are suppose to review the depth and breadth of any network created for specific areas.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-carriers-and-access-to-healthcare-providers-network-ad...

 

However, it is a problem BUT it is also the choice of the beneficiary (or employee) to accept or deny inadequate coverage of whatever type within a plan - individual health plan or an employer based plan.  Union or no - people can handle this by walking or going to their state Insurance dept.

 

Yes, Insurers will try to lower their cost any number of ways but in turn, should offer lower premiums.

Take the "Medicare Select" supplemental plan in traditional Medicare - yes, some of these providers are located miles and miles away.  Unlike regular Medigap plans that provide coverage for approved services performed anywhere that accepts Medicare, Medicare SELECT policies are more restrictive.Under the Medicare Select supplemental plan, insurance provider pre-determines a network of hospitals, medical offices, and medical providers. You must get treatment from those approved facilities, or your Medicare SELECT policy won’t help pay for your treatment.

Medicare SELECT policy versions are available in most states under many of the approved Medigap plans. Other than the restrictions placed on which medical facilities you may use, Medicare SELECT policies must meet all other regulations required by the standardized Medigap plans.

Medicare SELECT policies generally cost less than other standardized Medigap policies.

That is the reason for this type of coverage - it saves the beneficiary premium cost - it is up to them if it is feasible or if the cost savings balances out the (travel) inconvenience.

 

There are a lot of color coded books out there for medicine, their therapeutic uses and details about them - their suggested retail price maybe one of them but none of them actually evaluate price when determining therapeutic hierarchy - this should be done in the approval process at the FDA.   Which one is good, better, best when comparing them one to the other - medicine to medicine or even medicine to other treatment options.

 

We also need to have a way to force pharmaceutical companies to expand their usage of a particular medication especially when such off-label use has been proven and is cheaper - or they have a patent time limit placed on the expensive one or some such punitive action.

Example: Battle of the Eye Drugs: Lucentis v. Avastin

 

Yes, we have lots of problems in our healthcare system - it is not just one thing.

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
446
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
466
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

466 Views
Message 5 of 126

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

I love the arguments:  

 

In ten years, Medicare for all would cost us $32 Trillion.  What did it cost us last year? $3.2 Trillion. What scares me is I don't think the Republicans can do the math. (10*3.2=32). Add to that the current system does not cover everyone and Republicans are trying to make it cover fewer I would say Medicare for all is a bargain. 


And you would speak the Truth. For it to work, a YUGE amount of flimflam has to be eliminated, and that terrifies the GOPerLords who mine that flimflam for pure gold.

1. Single Payer eliminates need for care providers to deal with HUNDREDS of different Insurance forms. That alone will save the system around $165Billion each year in Hospital overhead, and another $30 Billion from doctor's offices and clinics. But of course Republicans will want the providers to be able to keep the money, so they gotta go.

2. We need to follow the rest of the Western World and make intelligent use of paraprofessionals - Midwives for routine deliveries at home would save the system $102 Billion/year, and if non-MD Corpsmen can handle trauma on a battlefield, they can do a bunch more in our ERs.

3. Big Pharma charges Americans over TWICE what they accept from citizens of other countries BECAUSE the Governments of those countries refuse to put up with Big Pharma's BS. We need to adopt that "foreign practice" as well and shave $85 to $160 Billion from OUR bill.

 

Three items, HALF A TRILLION SAVED EACH YEAR. Now Universal Coverage Single Payer (aka  Medicare for all) is eminently affordable.


Numbers again - can you substantiate your claims? I tried and google doesn't seem yo know what you are talking about.

 

And again - can you drop the fraud of "Medicare for all"? Medicare is paid in to by those receiving the benefits; Medicare applies to age 65+; Medicare recipients need supplemental insurance (are you expecting all people to actually pay for their own supplemental insurance?).


Still can't figure out google? Try "National Healthcare Expenditures 2016 Highlights - CMS.gov

 

Still rely on semantic subtrafuge to make up for a lack substance? I've repeatedly stated it's NOT "Medicare For All", it's UNIVERSAL COVERAGE SINGLE PAYER.

I gave you SIX places you can find reporting that in the 1970's Government provided 75% of the cost of operating our State Colleges/Universities and since the Reagan Taxscam killed Revenue Sharing the number has dropped to around 25% with tuition making up the difference, and you insist you can't find any of them and you can't find them either. Seems the problem is in your search technique and not in the availability of data, but it's not on Fox, so you wouldn't be looking in the right placees.


1. Your source cited costs - you assumed savings.

 

2. Some are still calling it "Medicare for all".

 

3. You gave no sources showing the federal government paid 50% (using your figures) of the cost of colleges and universities prior to the Reagan tax cuts.

 

4. Fox is not posting here - we are. Try to not hide behind Fox when dealing with fellow posters.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
466
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
474
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

474 Views
Message 6 of 126

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

And again - can you drop the fraud of "Medicare for all"? Medicare is paid in to by those receiving the benefits; Medicare applies to age 65+; Medicare recipients need supplemental insurance (are you expecting all people to actually pay for their own supplemental insurance?).


That does seem to be the way Canadians and Europeans pay for their healthcare.  How odd that they cover every resident, have lower costs, and better outcomes than the United States.  Must be a liberal conspiracy to report the wrong numbers in the free press, eh?


Neither Canadians nor Europeans are my point, as I am sure you are able to figure out - it is the fraud of calling it "Medicare for all".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
474
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
480
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

480 Views
Message 7 of 126

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

I love the arguments:  

 

In ten years, Medicare for all would cost us $32 Trillion.  What did it cost us last year? $3.2 Trillion. What scares me is I don't think the Republicans can do the math. (10*3.2=32). Add to that the current system does not cover everyone and Republicans are trying to make it cover fewer I would say Medicare for all is a bargain. 


And you would speak the Truth. For it to work, a YUGE amount of flimflam has to be eliminated, and that terrifies the GOPerLords who mine that flimflam for pure gold.

1. Single Payer eliminates need for care providers to deal with HUNDREDS of different Insurance forms. That alone will save the system around $165Billion each year in Hospital overhead, and another $30 Billion from doctor's offices and clinics. But of course Republicans will want the providers to be able to keep the money, so they gotta go.

2. We need to follow the rest of the Western World and make intelligent use of paraprofessionals - Midwives for routine deliveries at home would save the system $102 Billion/year, and if non-MD Corpsmen can handle trauma on a battlefield, they can do a bunch more in our ERs.

3. Big Pharma charges Americans over TWICE what they accept from citizens of other countries BECAUSE the Governments of those countries refuse to put up with Big Pharma's BS. We need to adopt that "foreign practice" as well and shave $85 to $160 Billion from OUR bill.

 

Three items, HALF A TRILLION SAVED EACH YEAR. Now Universal Coverage Single Payer (aka  Medicare for all) is eminently affordable.


Numbers again - can you substantiate your claims? I tried and google doesn't seem yo know what you are talking about.

 

And again - can you drop the fraud of "Medicare for all"? Medicare is paid in to by those receiving the benefits; Medicare applies to age 65+; Medicare recipients need supplemental insurance (are you expecting all people to actually pay for their own supplemental insurance?).


Still can't figure out google? Try "National Healthcare Expenditures 2016 Highlights - CMS.gov

 

Still rely on semantic subtrafuge to make up for a lack substance? I've repeatedly stated it's NOT "Medicare For All", it's UNIVERSAL COVERAGE SINGLE PAYER.

I gave you SIX places you can find reporting that in the 1970's Government provided 75% of the cost of operating our State Colleges/Universities and since the Reagan Taxscam killed Revenue Sharing the number has dropped to around 25% with tuition making up the difference, and you insist you can't find any of them and you can't find them either. Seems the problem is in your search technique and not in the availability of data, but it's not on Fox, so you wouldn't be looking in the right placees.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
480
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
522
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

522 Views
Message 8 of 126

@rk9152 wrote:

 

And again - can you drop the fraud of "Medicare for all"? Medicare is paid in to by those receiving the benefits; Medicare applies to age 65+; Medicare recipients need supplemental insurance (are you expecting all people to actually pay for their own supplemental insurance?).


That does seem to be the way Canadians and Europeans pay for their healthcare.  How odd that they cover every resident, have lower costs, and better outcomes than the United States.  Must be a liberal conspiracy to report the wrong numbers in the free press, eh?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
522
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
528
Views

Re: Three Pinochios - Democrats Seize On Cherry-Picked Claim that "Medicare for All" Would

528 Views
Message 9 of 126

How much should we pay a doctor to save your life or that of a child or newborn? What's their worth in the total s heme of things?


That reminds me of the time I went to Reptile World here in Florida.
There was a man there who milked the snakes' venom. I thought it was an insane job. He had marks on his forearms - proof how dangerous his job was. He explained the cost of making antivenom.

After he milked the snakes, the venom is sent to a lab and turned into medicine. Then it's sent to the hospitals. I also learned that one medicine treats almost every type of snake bite, so you don't have to worry about identifying the type of snake that bit you.
He explained that the actual cost to make the antivenom is a very small fraction of what the hospital actually charges the patient. He thought it was very unfair, and believed the reason for the exorbitant charge to the patient was because they know patient is thinking "I could have died".

Which reminds minds me of the movie "Family Vacation" when Chevy Chase asked the auto mechanic "How much do I owe you?", and the mechanic replied "How much you got?"

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
528
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
538
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

538 Views
Message 10 of 126

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

I love the arguments:  

 

In ten years, Medicare for all would cost us $32 Trillion.  What did it cost us last year? $3.2 Trillion. What scares me is I don't think the Republicans can do the math. (10*3.2=32). Add to that the current system does not cover everyone and Republicans are trying to make it cover fewer I would say Medicare for all is a bargain. 


And you would speak the Truth. For it to work, a YUGE amount of flimflam has to be eliminated, and that terrifies the GOPerLords who mine that flimflam for pure gold.

1. Single Payer eliminates need for care providers to deal with HUNDREDS of different Insurance forms. That alone will save the system around $165Billion each year in Hospital overhead, and another $30 Billion from doctor's offices and clinics. But of course Republicans will want the providers to be able to keep the money, so they gotta go.

2. We need to follow the rest of the Western World and make intelligent use of paraprofessionals - Midwives for routine deliveries at home would save the system $102 Billion/year, and if non-MD Corpsmen can handle trauma on a battlefield, they can do a bunch more in our ERs.

3. Big Pharma charges Americans over TWICE what they accept from citizens of other countries BECAUSE the Governments of those countries refuse to put up with Big Pharma's BS. We need to adopt that "foreign practice" as well and shave $85 to $160 Billion from OUR bill.

 

Three items, HALF A TRILLION SAVED EACH YEAR. Now Universal Coverage Single Payer (aka  Medicare for all) is eminently affordable.


Numbers again - can you substantiate your claims? I tried and google doesn't seem yo know what you are talking about.

 

And again - can you drop the fraud of "Medicare for all"? Medicare is paid in to by those receiving the benefits; Medicare applies to age 65+; Medicare recipients need supplemental insurance (are you expecting all people to actually pay for their own supplemental insurance?).

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
538
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors