Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
630
Views

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

630 Views
Message 111 of 126

@CriticalThinking wrote:

This is an area where I don't know as much as others, but I do have some thoughts.

 

  • Does this study factor in the money we would save from the thousands of Americans without health insurance who currently use emergency rooms for their health care? This could be a huge chunk of money.
  • Did this study factor in the savings of the government negotiating drug prices (which are out of control now) with the drug companies?
  • With everybody having health insurance under "Medicare for All" this should catch thousands of medical issues while they're still minor and thereby save us a fortune.
  • There should be other huge cost savings, which I can't think of at the moment, which  the government could negotiate with health providers.

The Obamacare Debate covered some of these issues - however - just like when Eisenhower initiated the Interstate Highway System - Tolls - Optimum Speed Limits - Bridge Jurisdiction - etc took time to develop the entire program - Obamacare was a foundation that was meant to be built upon and updated as things became more focused - Trump and the GOP refused to allow the Template to be improved upon because they subscribe to a only the Strong and Rich should survive philosophy - honesty and fairness need not apply - it actually devolved into who knows who and who can cheat without getting caught the best............................

 

For Example - what possible reasonable excuse can there be for us not to be able to negotiate the best price for Prescriptions?

 

Why should Secret Kickback Contracts be legal for Pharmacies?

 

Why should the DEA be prevented from investigating why a town of 10,000 is being sold enough Oxycontin to provide 300 pills a day for each man woman and child?

 

All these things are happening under the GOP controlled Congress and Trump

 

VOTE in NOVEMBER

 

 

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
630
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
315
Views

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

315 Views
Message 112 of 126

When one considers the amount we currently spend on healthcare this would not be much of an increase if there would be an increase at all. We currently spend $9,237 per person (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-leas...) which comes to about $3 trillion per year or $30 trillion over 10 years without considering any increase in population or inflation.

 

Yes, it would require an increase in taxes but it would be essentially offset by the decrease in the payments to insurance companies, copays, and deductibles. This is another case where only part of the story is being provided.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
315
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
292
Views

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

292 Views
Message 113 of 126

This is an area where I don't know as much as others, but I do have some thoughts.

 

  • Does this study factor in the money we would save from the thousands of Americans without health insurance who currently use emergency rooms for their health care? This could be a huge chunk of money.
  • Did this study factor in the savings of the government negotiating drug prices (which are out of control now) with the drug companies?
  • With everybody having health insurance under "Medicare for All" this should catch thousands of medical issues while they're still minor and thereby save us a fortune.
  • There should be other huge cost savings, which I can't think of at the moment, which  the government could negotiate with health providers.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
292
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
287
Views

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

287 Views
Message 114 of 126

@CS402050 wrote:

Following is an article I published on this subject last year.

 

Sometimes liberals have good intentions. At least that's what I tell myself. But they screw it up in the end and then argue to the death that they saved all us little people from ourselves. For example, they decided we needed “comprehensive health care reform” so they gave us the ACA and now they keep arguing how great it is because fewer people are uninsured. But the ACA did not reform healthcare. It made it easier for a minuscule percentage of the population to buy health insurance and penalized everyone else. But having insurance and getting healthcare are two different things and having insurance does not mean you can get healthcare. Just one obvious example is all the people who were required to buy insurance under the ACA but can't use it because they can't afford the deductibles.

 

Now Bernie Sanders has introduced a single-payer bill. Strike two. Single-payer only makes the problem worse. For one thing, the cost would be astronomical, a minor point which is seldom considered by liberals until it is too late and we're stuck with the bill. After years of trying, California passed single-payer earlier this year. According to the LA Times, 65% of voters were in favor of it. Then the cost was revealed, which would more than double the budget of the state with the highest state income tax and the 65% in favor changed to 80% against and it was dropped just like it was dropped in Sanders' home state. But liberal states like California are rooting for Sanders. Like all good socialists they believe someone else should pay for what they want. Why else would they be in favor of something they already discarded due to cost unless they thought tax money from other states would offset their cost? And all that money does little more than pay for a giant quasi-insurance company run by the government. It still does not address healthcare.

 

When I was young, my family could not afford health insurance and Medicare and Medicaid did not exist. Yet we got the healthcare we needed because it was affordable. Today it is not and that's the problem. Of the top thirty-five developed nations, healthcare cost per person in the U.S. is far greater than any other country and close to three times the average of the other thirty-four countries. A doctor summed up the problem in an NBC interview: “We have crappy outcomes for a huge price tag. We do all kinds of stuff that doesn’t really work that’s expensive. We are wasting a ton of money and probably not helping people.” Sanders attempted to use cost to justify single-payer by saying we will spend $49 trillion over the next ten years if something isn't done. But single-payer doesn't address the cost. It just addresses who sends the check.

 

Medicare rates are set by a panel of doctors appointed by the AMA. Insurance companies negotiate rates with healthcare providers. Neither seems to get it right. The rates are all over the place and healthcare providers always overbill anyway. For example, according to the HuffPost, a woman was billed $135,000 by a hospital. Per an agreement, her insurance paid $45,000. But the average price the hospital was paid for that procedure was $37,000. According to CNN, an echocardiogram costs $1,714 in Massachusetts, $5,435 in New Jersey and less than $100 in Japan. In some cases, insurance companies pay more than Medicare. In some cases, Medicare pays more than insurance companies. In some cases, both Medicare and insurance companies are paying more than rates set by the healthcare providers themselves. For example, the LA Times reported that a hospital had a set price of $1,054 for a CT scan. Per a “negotiated” agreement a woman's insurance paid $2,336 for that CT scan.

 

Democrats and Republicans can argue the merits of their various plans forever but it's all meaningless until something is done about healthcare cost. The good news is there are lots of things that could be done. For example, rates could be set by law for providers. Personally, I'd hate to see that but we do have laws against price gouging during emergencies. What's a bigger emergency than a life threatening illness? My preference would be a “most favored nation” law that says healthcare providers cannot charge anyone more than the lowest price they charge anyone else.

 

With that and a couple more equally simple laws, healthcare would take care of itself and the government could get out of the healthcare business and stop punishing us for their incompetence. But don't hold your breath. For anything reasonable to happen, liberals would have to admit that the ACA and universal healthcare are not the answers. Fat chance. Besides, the AMA has one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, closely followed by the AHA and some other healthcare associations. And their goal is to keep those rates as high as possible.


 

 

You can repeat this and repost this as many times as you want..................................but there exists in the United States 3 Essential Documents that distinguish our Country from all others - the theme throughout these 3 Documents has nothing to do with Exclusion of any it's Citizens especially due to the inability to pay for our rights and privledges....................................Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness only requires one to be a Citizen and for that Citizen to be Loyal & Commited to the Values and Obligations outlined in the 3 Documents........................

 

The more Expensive Life becomes as it is with the cost of Healthcare today - the more valuable the themes in these 3 documents become

 

No American should be denied Life because of their inability to pay

 

This isn;t about Left or Right - it's about Promises Kept within a System of Beliefs thats states - ALL Men are Created Equal................................no mention of Dollars and Cents anywhere

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
287
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
290
Views

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

290 Views
Message 115 of 126

Unless and until we stop playing partisan political games with this issue, there WILL be no comprehensive solution.

 

Times are changing.

 

A poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation , a nonpartisan health policy think tank, found that:


59% of respondents supported a Medicare-for-all healthcare system in which all Americans would get coverage through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid.

 

medicare all chart.jpg

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
290
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
292
Views

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

292 Views
Message 116 of 126

Here we go again on health care. Gail finds an article on one part of health care and posts it with how to cut cost in that small part of the Health Care system,. Then we see a lot of others chime in with more nonsense based on one small part of the total system. Is it any wounder very little if anything  is done to change the total health care system.

HERE IS A FACT EVERYONE IN THE USA TODAY CAN GET HEALTH CARE. THEY JUST GO TO THE ER AND THEY WILL BE TREATED WHETHER THEY CAN PAY FOR IT OR NOT.     FACT, FACT.

 

Now since every one is covered for health care how do we make it cheaper. Well the ER Care part is the most expense care in the system for many reasons, and has the poorest outcomes for people.

What Gail opening article does is move more people into the ER Care System so the total cost of health Care goes up. We pay for the total cost of the Health Care system by Insurance Premiums, Local, State, Fed. Taxes, Giving to Charity, Business Taxes. So stop looking at the Premium you pay alone.

 

How do you lower costs. Well since every one has medical coverage you lower the costs, spread the cost to areas we take part in that cause increased use of the total system. Drug prices is an easy one. Price control. Have all people insured can mean more money coming from that sector, and less from Taxes, and should mean better use of the system by people. Stop people from abusing the system by rushing for medical help when they do not need it. Medical costs from Auto Accidents could be handled differently. Have a small amount of Private Passenger Auto Insurance included in every Drivers license issued, and every car purchased use that money to pay claims over a certain amount. Do the same for other life style choices that increase medical usage thus costs Look at one large trust fund for these expenses.

There are experts around now who could put such a program together and it would cost less, and spread the cost better. No one in here has the full answer, and the articles used in here are for the most part stupid when related to the total system.

What can we all do now. Start looking at the entire Health Care system we are all in and stop the nonsense of trying to lower the cost of the part we are in, and increasing the cost of the other parts. We need to grow up and act like responsible adults. The full system can be made cheaper, and better. Lastly: EVERYONE IN THE USA HAS MEDICAL COVERAGE WHETHER THEY CAN PAY FOR IT OR NOT.    FAct fact.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
292
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
315
Views

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

315 Views
Message 117 of 126

@afisher wrote:

 

 

     Until some one comes up with realistic numbers, this is just another distraction from what donald and his regime are attempting to hide from.  


This has been the case long before Trump became President.  I look at my Medicare statements and its apparent some unrelated specialist passes by out in the hall submits a bill. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
315
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
317
Views

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

317 Views
Message 118 of 126

    Until we have a denominator all the huffing and puffing is a waste of breathe.     What I don't know is how much healthcare in the US actually costs, because we should all already know the gamesmanship about medical treatment and that there are mark-ups every year for "profits".   The profits whether they be for shareholders/ CEOs etc/  or to build a nest egg to improve medical facilities or research new therapies or whatever are never released.     That I suspect is on purpose.    The game is also on the physicians who make claims about retiring if they don't receive sufficient dollars for the expansive life-styles, etc.   

 

     Until some one comes up with realistic numbers, this is just another distraction from what donald and his regime are attempting to hide from.  

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
317
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
325
Views

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

325 Views
Message 119 of 126
@CS402050.......Good post. During my days as a HR Manager, I learned that the people who protest the loudest regarding costs are those that use the insurance the most. The argument of, "Are you saying I should be punished for being sick?" Of course not, but what I saw over and over was employees who yelped about the cost run to the emergency room, go for every test possible, refuse generic drugs, and worst of all not take care of their own health. I have a problem to this day with people who think the government or their employer should be in charge of their total life.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
325
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
334
Views

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

334 Views
Message 120 of 126

Following is an article I published on this subject last year.

 

Sometimes liberals have good intentions. At least that's what I tell myself. But they screw it up in the end and then argue to the death that they saved all us little people from ourselves. For example, they decided we needed “comprehensive health care reform” so they gave us the ACA and now they keep arguing how great it is because fewer people are uninsured. But the ACA did not reform healthcare. It made it easier for a minuscule percentage of the population to buy health insurance and penalized everyone else. But having insurance and getting healthcare are two different things and having insurance does not mean you can get healthcare. Just one obvious example is all the people who were required to buy insurance under the ACA but can't use it because they can't afford the deductibles.

 

Now Bernie Sanders has introduced a single-payer bill. Strike two. Single-payer only makes the problem worse. For one thing, the cost would be astronomical, a minor point which is seldom considered by liberals until it is too late and we're stuck with the bill. After years of trying, California passed single-payer earlier this year. According to the LA Times, 65% of voters were in favor of it. Then the cost was revealed, which would more than double the budget of the state with the highest state income tax and the 65% in favor changed to 80% against and it was dropped just like it was dropped in Sanders' home state. But liberal states like California are rooting for Sanders. Like all good socialists they believe someone else should pay for what they want. Why else would they be in favor of something they already discarded due to cost unless they thought tax money from other states would offset their cost? And all that money does little more than pay for a giant quasi-insurance company run by the government. It still does not address healthcare.

 

When I was young, my family could not afford health insurance and Medicare and Medicaid did not exist. Yet we got the healthcare we needed because it was affordable. Today it is not and that's the problem. Of the top thirty-five developed nations, healthcare cost per person in the U.S. is far greater than any other country and close to three times the average of the other thirty-four countries. A doctor summed up the problem in an NBC interview: “We have crappy outcomes for a huge price tag. We do all kinds of stuff that doesn’t really work that’s expensive. We are wasting a ton of money and probably not helping people.” Sanders attempted to use cost to justify single-payer by saying we will spend $49 trillion over the next ten years if something isn't done. But single-payer doesn't address the cost. It just addresses who sends the check.

 

Medicare rates are set by a panel of doctors appointed by the AMA. Insurance companies negotiate rates with healthcare providers. Neither seems to get it right. The rates are all over the place and healthcare providers always overbill anyway. For example, according to the HuffPost, a woman was billed $135,000 by a hospital. Per an agreement, her insurance paid $45,000. But the average price the hospital was paid for that procedure was $37,000. According to CNN, an echocardiogram costs $1,714 in Massachusetts, $5,435 in New Jersey and less than $100 in Japan. In some cases, insurance companies pay more than Medicare. In some cases, Medicare pays more than insurance companies. In some cases, both Medicare and insurance companies are paying more than rates set by the healthcare providers themselves. For example, the LA Times reported that a hospital had a set price of $1,054 for a CT scan. Per a “negotiated” agreement a woman's insurance paid $2,336 for that CT scan.

 

Democrats and Republicans can argue the merits of their various plans forever but it's all meaningless until something is done about healthcare cost. The good news is there are lots of things that could be done. For example, rates could be set by law for providers. Personally, I'd hate to see that but we do have laws against price gouging during emergencies. What's a bigger emergency than a life threatening illness? My preference would be a “most favored nation” law that says healthcare providers cannot charge anyone more than the lowest price they charge anyone else.

 

With that and a couple more equally simple laws, healthcare would take care of itself and the government could get out of the healthcare business and stop punishing us for their incompetence. But don't hold your breath. For anything reasonable to happen, liberals would have to admit that the ACA and universal healthcare are not the answers. Fat chance. Besides, the AMA has one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, closely followed by the AHA and some other healthcare associations. And their goal is to keep those rates as high as possible.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
334
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors