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

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
297
Views

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

297 Views
Message 91 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@Richva

 

Here is the analysis and report by Charles Blohus at the Mercatus Center.  

Actually it isn't out of line with the others that have been done by folks who have been within both Dem and Rep Administrations.

Mercatus Center: The Costs of a National Single-Payer System

 

The researcher points out savings in the government negotiating prescription meds based on a select, defined formulary, about $ 800 billion over ten years - which is how other industrialized countries do it to hold down cost.  

 

There are many ways those other countries hold down their healthcare cost - we need to try some of these ways to see what happens.  Will the healthcare industry and Americans like them - especially since they know what they have now - there might be an adjustment period.

 

For everything now except for the VA and private LTC out of pocket and insurance, we are running over $ 3 Trillion a year.

 

I hope to take a better look at this later but to compare our system and outcomes you have to look at other nations and how they control their cost and even outcomes - it makes sense what they do but it is a far cry from what we have.

Geographically we would have some problems - case in point as an example, MRI machines - we have many, many, more machines than other countries where they have to wait to get it done unless an emergency.  We can usually have one the same day.  But even having all these MRI machines, we still have places where people have no access to them - so we not only have to reduce the number of them, we have to reposition where they are located to give people access.

 

Now how would we get these MRI vendors to move from Big City, USA to Small City USA?

 

That's just an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


That's the Easy Part......................................

 

The Same way we brought Hospital Emergency Rooms to Vehicle Accidents & Mass Shootings - we stopped allowing the Local Funeral Home Director to be the First Responders - as a Society we demanded that Billy Joe Bob from the Local Fire Department have more training than just how to hook up the loudest siren and brightest lights on his Pickup Truck.....................

 

  Mobile MRI.png

 

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
297
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
260
Views

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

260 Views
Message 92 of 126

@Richva

 

Here is the analysis and report by Charles Blohus at the Mercatus Center.  

Actually it isn't out of line with the others that have been done by folks who have been within both Dem and Rep Administrations.

Mercatus Center: The Costs of a National Single-Payer System

 

The researcher points out savings in the government negotiating prescription meds based on a select, defined formulary, about $ 800 billion over ten years - which is how other industrialized countries do it to hold down cost.  

 

There are many ways those other countries hold down their healthcare cost - we need to try some of these ways to see what happens.  Will the healthcare industry and Americans like them - especially since they know what they have now - there might be an adjustment period.

 

For everything now except for the VA and private LTC out of pocket and insurance, we are running over $ 3 Trillion a year.

 

I hope to take a better look at this later but to compare our system and outcomes you have to look at other nations and how they control their cost and even outcomes - it makes sense what they do but it is a far cry from what we have.

Geographically we would have some problems - case in point as an example, MRI machines - we have many, many, more machines than other countries where they have to wait to get it done unless an emergency.  We can usually have one the same day.  But even having all these MRI machines, we still have places where people have no access to them - so we not only have to reduce the number of them, we have to reposition where they are located to give people access.

 

Now how would we get these MRI vendors to move from Big City, USA to Small City USA?

 

That's just an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
260
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
287
Views

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

287 Views
Message 93 of 126

I really question the validity of a cost study of a Bernie Sanders proposal done by the Koch Brothers' organization.  If the Koch Brothers can give every American health care for less, I would recommend they publish their report but it is very, very, easy to come up with inflated costs. 

 

What I have never been able to understand is why our medical costs are the highest in the world yet we are barely in the middle of the pack in terms of outcomes?  Maybe Bernie has something and the Koch Brothers are trying to make it look expensive?

 

 

"If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same," Sanders said in a statement. "This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers response to the growing support in our country for a 'Medicare for all' program."

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
287
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
295
Views

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

295 Views
Message 94 of 126

While a slim majority favors the idea of a national health plan at the outset, a prolonged national debate over making such a dramatic change to the U.S. health care system would likely result in the public being exposed to multiple messages for and against such a plan.

 

When you say debate, what you really mean is when the big money interests like the insurance companies and Wall Street go all out to convince people that what really is good for them is actually bad.

They'll try, but their arguments are becoming weaker.

 

Prior to ObamaCare, the argument was "Government should stay out of healthcare" and "Socialism!".

Times are changing. Now when government officials talk about repealing ObamaCare people ask "And replace with what?" 

It's difficult for the old arguments to hold when people now expect the government to "step in" and prevent insurance companies from "having the freedom" to deny people with pre-existing conditions. Yep, times are changing...

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KOCH-BACKED THINK TANK FINDS THAT “MEDICARE FOR ALL” WOULD CUT HEALTH CARE SPENDING AND RAISE WAGES. WHOOPS.


Blahous’s paper, titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending.
Blahous’s report also acknowledges some substantial benefits to eliminating employer-sponsored insurance. He writes that these changes “should increase worker wage net of employer-provided health benefits,” while also “relieving individuals, families, and employers of the substantial health expenditures they would experience under current law.”

The report even admits that the Sanders bill would serve as a boon to states, freeing them from most Medicaid obligations.

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/

 

 

healthcare treadmill.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
295
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
300
Views

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

300 Views
Message 95 of 126

@CS402050 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@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

 

 

 


First, WRONG.  There is one document that governs this country.  It is the Constitution.  You're quoting the Declaration of Independence which is NOT law.  Its purpose was to explain why this country declared its independence from Great Britain

 

Second, you shouldn't reference the Constitution if you're not willing to abide by it which liberals only do when it's convenient.  For example, the Constitution states that only Congress can make or change the law and it requires the President to ensure "the Laws be faithfully executed."  That is EXACTLY what Trump did with his zero tolerance policy.  He didn't make any law; he didn't change any law; he said the law as enacted by Congress should be enforced.  And all the little liberals started whining about it and talking about how bad he was for doing what the Constitution requires him to do.  (Just more of the same, nothing to offer voters so let's stand in the way of the Constitution and say it's Trump's fault.)

 

So if you want to discuss the founding documents of this country, first just tell me you agree with Trumps' zero tolerance policy.

 

Finally, what I wrote has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not a person gets healthcare.  It was about the best way to provide healthcare.  So save your emotional nonsense for someone who isn't able to recognized it for just what it is.


 1. This thread is about Healthcare so please excuse me if you got off-track - I'll try to not let you do that again - but since you brought it up

 

2. ZERO Tolerance - No I do not agree with Trumps interpretation of the law and the way he's chosen in many cases to bypass Due Process

 

3. The Expedited Removal exception does not apply to Illegals seeking Asylum - but Trump has ignored that and complicated the process by refusing to process asylum seekers in a timely manner

 

4. Trump has basterdized the entire Process because of his Incompetence - another Inititiative mired in Courts and Chaos because of ignorance of the Law - poor management and planning - everything he touches turns to mush - including the only piece of Legislation he's actually signed into law - the Tax Give Away to the Already Rich & Politically Powerful - complete abortion

 

5. The Statistics prove that once again Trump is Lying - Illegal Immigration is way down - way before Trump initiated his New Policy - there is not Big Emergency 

 

6. Trump said today that ICE is doing a remrarkable job removing the dangerous MS -13 Gang Members - once again - no details - no proof

 

7. We know at least a little about the Thousands of Mothers seperated from their Children but nothing about the number of MS-13 Gang Members who are the basis according to Trump - for all this Immigration Chaos

 

8. Reasonable People would be correct in thinking if ICE really was arresting and prosecuting or removing thousands of MS -13 Gang Members - we would see the picture - hear the names and details - so we could all cheer and sleep better at night - Crickets

 

Pathological Liar

 

Soon to be Impeached and then Convicted Felon

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
300
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
327
Views

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

327 Views
Message 96 of 126

@gordyfl wrote:

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

 

 

 


From the same source:

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-s...

 

While a slim majority favors the idea of a national health plan at the outset, a prolonged national debate over making such a dramatic change to the U.S. health care system would likely result in the public being exposed to multiple messages for and against such a plan. The poll finds the public’s attitudes on single-payer are quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate. For example, when those who initially say they favor a single-payer or Medicare-for-all plan are asked how they would feel if they heard that such a plan would give the government too much control over health care, about four in ten (21 percent of the public overall) say they would change their mind and would now oppose the plan, pushing total opposition up to 62 percent. Similarly, when this group is told such a plan would require many Americans to pay more in taxes or that it would eliminate or replace the Affordable Care Act, total opposition increases to 60 percent and 53 percent, respectively.

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
327
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
315
Views

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

315 Views
Message 97 of 126

@john258 wrote:
 

Your support data does not include all the expenses that make up the total health care costs. Mainly expenses at State and local level.  Until you go to the total system what you say means nothing, and nothing will be changed. It might make one feel good to show all this data, but it is a waste of time if you really want to improve the total system. A start to improve the system is a Medi Care for all approach as medi care works. The ACA was a good start but the far right are doing everything to kill it, as their approach is a go fund me account for everyone. Give us all the details on the Go fund me accounts as that would be as much help as the support data provided so far. The biggest start would to have all learn what the current system is and how to use the material on the web as that would keep people from trying to be experts on health care rather than experts on health care articles. There are experts who can fix this problem but they are not in here, and spending our time getting leaders in office who will bring the real experts together would be a start. You can be sure Trump and his far right crowd are not that group. They belong to the group who have told us let them die in the streets. Yes all providers will accept the payments outlined in a new total health care system.


Yes, the CMS Healthcare Expenditures Data include what states pay for some of their citizens as well as what they pay for their state and local employees - it is even broken down in one of the spreadsheets by state and is part of the government covered cost on the aggregated spread sheet.

Feel free to check the various spreadsheets (EXCEL) - they are all labeled as to their detailed content.

 

Like I said,nit covers everything paid by somebody for Heathcare and healthcare coverage.  The only things it does not cover is the VA and (private) LTC payments and premiums because that part has been removed from the Medicare For All plan, at least right now.

 

How do you know that providers will accept the Medicare payment for their services - some don't now - especially specialist.  Last time I looked, providers still have the right to set their own fees and not accept a government payment.

Psychiatry comes to mind as a big culprit.

Plus doctors could still set up a concierge practice as many have already done.

 

Until there is more details put forth about a Medicare for All plan, I don't think we will really know how people, providers, researchers, manufacturers might react.

 

But ya know, john258, I don't know if it includes the IHC since that is a separate entity and funded separately like the VA - I do not know if it is included.

Would the IHC system be merged into a Medicare for All plan in your opinion.

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
315
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
336
Views

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

336 Views
Message 98 of 126

@gruffstuff

 

Now let's look at this on an individual basis - and on the financial portion of it only.

The money to pay for it has to come from taxes if it is gonna be a true single payer system.  Who's taxes - is the 1st hurdle.

How much should employers pick up?

 

As far as individuals go - who pay ?

There would be no more "subsidies" now used to reduce some peoples premium cost.  There would be no more Medicare payroll tax as it is today.

 

Would seniors be given some sort of a tax break on their Hospital portion of the new system?

 

No more insurance companies unless they write some sort of supplemental plan paying for things that "Medicare for All" doesn't cover or if there happens to be some deductibles, co pays, coinsurance built into it.  

 

As I see it right now - and there is still a lot of ???? - I think some people might be paying less, some about the same but others a great,deal more.

 

Like I have harped over and over - we need to work on our healthcare cost 1st - we can even pick up or try some of the maneuvers that other countries use to keep their health care cost under control.  We can build in best practices and stick to them, we can establish value-based efficacy measures on medical procedures, treatments and medicines to make sure we are getting our monies worth rather than paying for things that don't have value.

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
336
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
338
Views

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

338 Views
Message 99 of 126

@CS402050 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@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

 

 

 


First, WRONG.  There is one document that governs this country.  It is the Constitution.  You're quoting the Declaration of Independence which is NOT law.  Its purpose was to explain why this country declared its independence from Great Britain

 

Second, you shouldn't reference the Constitution if you're not willing to abide by it which liberals only do when it's convenient.  For example, the Constitution states that only Congress can make or change the law and it requires the President to ensure "the Laws be faithfully executed."  That is EXACTLY what Trump did with his zero tolerance policy.  He didn't make any law; he didn't change any law; he said the law as enacted by Congress should be enforced.  And all the little liberals started whining about it and talking about how bad he was for doing what the Constitution requires him to do.  (Just more of the same, nothing to offer voters so let's stand in the way of the Constitution and say it's Trump's fault.)

 

So if you want to discuss the founding documents of this country, first just tell me you agree with Trumps' zero tolerance policy.

 

Finally, what I wrote has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not a person gets healthcare.  It was about the best way to provide healthcare.  So save your emotional nonsense for someone who isn't able to recognized it for just what it is.


I'm never going to apologize for allowing emotions to factor into how I think my Government should treat its citizens - almost every major policy devision has the potential to make or break people lives...........we never would have fought a Revolutionary or a Civil War if not for the huge emotional investment by so many brave people ......... we need more Love more Compassion - more empathy not less & more Courage in Government Leaders to recognize we are Governing Human Beings - not simply money & machines 

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
338
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
345
Views

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

345 Views
Message 100 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@

 



 

Gail

 

Your own article claims the spending on Medicare for all would be 2 - 3 Trillion a year - it seems to imply that would be in addition to the 3.5 trillion we are already spending - is that True?

 

1. How Much does the USA spend on Healthcare for All Americans each year? Remember this figure includes PROFIT for Insurance Companies - Fraud by Drs Hospitals Pharmacies

 


Gail

 

Much of the problem here appears to be a claim that the USA spends 50% of it's 3.5 Trillion Budget for Healthcare on only 5% of the population

 

 

We can keep a 100 year old persons heart going with a defribillating Pace Maker - we can breathe for them on a Repiratory Ventilator - we can cleanse their blood and urine with machines - we can replace all thei joints with metal ones - we can grow new body parts

 

You can make all the WOW WOW WOW Headlines you want

 

But until we decide some of these Cultural and Social Issues it's all Gobbleygook and Showboating

 

If we are already spending 3.5 Trillion a year with some of the poorest outcomes in the World like being in last place in Maternal Morbidity and we aren't even covering all Americans

 

Spending roughly the same amount or perhaps double? on covering everyone - but cutting out the worthless but obcenenly expensive profit for Health Insurance Companies who are only actually spending everyones premium payments on a small amount of really sick people with the rest I'm guessing the other 50% going into Shareholders and CEO pockets

 

I think even with my admitedly naive and over-simplified snapshot of what currently exists - any initiative that moves us towards coverage for everyone on a national basis under one Federal Administrative Agency cutting out all the nonsense regarding cross-state borders - out of network groups etc

 

Yeah I think looking at Medicare for all is a worthwhile exercise

 

 

 

 


The way I understand it, mickstuder - and I am having to go from 2016 data - is that the $ 3.3 Trillion we spent on health cost in 2016, covers everything, except for the VA Healthcare system.

CMS did a detailed analysis of everything back in 2016 and it is also historical.

CMS - The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) - DATA

 

This data is done by tables in total and then by specifics.  The total page covers these things to add up to the 3.3 Trillion in Health Expenditures in 2016.

National Health Expenditures                                                      $ 3337.2

  • Health Consumption Expenditures                                                               $ 3179.8
    • Personal Healthcare                                                                      $ 2834.0
    • Government Administration and net cost of Health insurance       $   263.7
    • Government Public Health Activities                                              $     82.2

Investment                                                                                                                $   157.4

 

Within these categories, it covers all these things:

National Healthcare Expenditures 2016 Highlights

 

Each of the tables and the pdf data give info about this aggregate above.

Table 1 is the totals which I have posted above for 2016 - sorry if it does not line up exactly due to this sites formating options - did my best.

Table 2 is by type of expenditure

Table 3 is by source of funds

and so on . . . . .

 

This PDF document within the data is pie-charts showing THE NATION’S HEALTH DOLLAR ($3.3 TRILLION), CALENDAR YEAR 2016: - WHERE IT CAME FROM

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealt...

 

The only thing I see missing is the VA Healthcare system and I believe that is because it is a separate entity, separately funded - it is also not covered within any "Medicare for All" plan.

 

Yes, your statement here is TRUE EXCEPT IT IS NOT JUST MEDICARE - it is all of our health care spending - out of pocket, insurance premiums dental bills etc.

Your own article claims the spending on Medicare for all would be 2 - 3 Trillion a year - it seems to imply that would be in addition to the 3.5 trillion we are already spending - is that True?

 

These cost analysis of the "Medicare for All" HR676, I believe, without the LTC provision - are based on a 10-year time line of 2022 - 2031.

 

So simplifying this - the analysis adds in all forecasted health expenditures - except for the VA and LTC and comes up with a total figure.  Then they figure out how much it would cost and that would be the tax basis - paid by whoever - people, emplolyers - whomever they can tax for it.

 

It is true that some of these cost would be offset - but not all of them as the article says.

 

These are cost expenditures - what it cost everybody - except the VA system and any LTC cost or insurance.  Insurance company profits are included in the cost expenditures so yes, they would be covered.  Same thing for any fraud - if we are paying for it now, it is included in the total expenditures.

 

No, we are not spending $ 3.5 Trillion annually on 5% of the population - the $ 3.5 Trillion ( $ 3.3 Trillion in 2016) covers everything except the VA and (private) LTC cost and insurance - Medicaid LTC cost are included for the poor elderly.  This figure also covers cost for dental and vision -but don't think it covers OTC drugs - but medically necessary stuff, like it is suppose to now..

 

Well, mickstuder, it is being looked at and analysized - that's why I posted the article - I have long complained that the proposal has been long on goodies but short on cost analysis - lets see what they do with it because it seems that the cost analysis by many different sources are coming in pretty close. 

 

The money to pay for it has to come from somebody - or from several groups of somebodies.  How much can you kick in?

 

However I agree with @CS402050 - before embarking on this endeavor - we need to do something about health care cost - In fact, we can just pick up some of the methods that other industrialized nations use to control their cost.  Let's see if American can accept some of them.  We can make sure that we are using Best Practices and that protochols have to have priority - meaning the morbidly obese person might have to lose some weight before they get their knee replacements because that leads to better success of the procedure and we don't have to pay for it again when it fails the 1st time.

 

Do you think providers will accept Medicare pay rates or lower under such a single payer system.

Or will our shortage of PCP just get worse - what about specialist?

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Thank you Gail - my position - we have done Healthcare in this Country the same way for multiple decades and the Costs are some of the Highest of any Industrialized Country and the Outcomes are worse in almost every measured modality 

 

Obamacare gave us a Template loosely based on what we've learned from our own Medicare/Medicaid/VA Healthcare  Systems along with other Universal Healthcare Programs around the world - it was for once a new approach to Healthcare for Americans to try. It never had a chance - Politics & Racism against Obama doomed it from the beginning. 

 

Obamacare like every other Political Football in the USA was not a bi-partisan effort to find the best solution for our Citizens so it was purposefully flawed 

 

Until we punish politicians by refusing to re-elect them until they start doing what is best for the Majority of Americans instead of what is best for their own careers & Special Interests - we are going to have more and more issues like our  Horrible Healthcare

 

Unfortunately the Politicians who had the Courage to create Medicare - Medicaid - Social Security and to demand Equal Rights & Civil Rights left none of their DNA behind .....

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
345
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