Learn how to use Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing services!  Register now for a free AARP webinar Nov. 18.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
377
Views

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

377 Views
Message 11 of 126

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
377
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views

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

298 Views
Message 12 of 126

@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. 


Once again, "Medicare or all" is a fraud.

 

People pay in to Medicare - would you have all people pay into your new scheme. Secondly, you have to wait to age 65 for Medicare - what happens to younger people who do not buy their own. Finally, Medicare requires a supplement - do you expect people to buy their own supplement?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
298
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
286
Views

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

286 Views
Message 13 of 126

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. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
286
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
281
Views

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

281 Views
Message 14 of 126

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Your track record on throwing out numbers leaves a lot to be desired.

My record is impeccable. Your's consists of ignoring reality in favor of Fox.

You have yet to provide a single data set for ANY of your claims, so its obvious to even a casual observer no thought was given to your denial of truth.

 

I'm still awaiting substantiation for the claim that the feds paid 75% of college and university costs before the Reagan tax cuts. That doesn't sound all that impeccable to me. 

 

There is also the tendency to let hatred lead off the deep end. For example, an 18 year old kid kills a Sikh and your reason - "Probably he watched Fox, listened to infowars, attended a Fundie Sunday School and belonged to the Young Republicans - those being the principal places spewing hatred of anyone who looks like he might be a Muslim".

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
281
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
286
Views

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

286 Views
Message 15 of 126

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.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
286
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
302
Views

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

302 Views
Message 16 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

WOW - guess the Dems need to go back to their calculators.

Who's gonna make doc's accept that much less when they were already really upset with their pay before the doc fix a few years ago.

 

WP Fact Checker - democrats seize on Cherry-Picked Claim that "Medicare for All" would save $ 2 Tril...

 

It got not one, not two, but three Pinochios - 


And yet, every other country in the world uses this system with lower costs, better results, and universal coverage. 


So should we just find some way to lower ALL the prices from pharmaceuticals to doctors, specialist, labs and diagnostics, hospitals, etc. And then our cost would be more equal to the health outcome results we are getting?  

 

Instead of spending close to 18% or GDP as we do now, we spend around 11 - 12 %, as other countries do.  Change nothing else - that's what a study by the Harvard Global Health said earlier this year.  ALL the problems come from what we pay for services and products - or whomever pays - us, insurance companies, government.

 

 


Gail - are you suggesting we must solve ALL the problems with pricing ofhealthcare before we act to reduce ANY of the problems? Hope not, because that is absurd.

 

Like I said, Hospitals take up 32% of the total cost of health care in America, 30% of that $1.1TRILLION is "administration" and most of that $330 Billion is caused by there being literally HUNDREDS of different forms and conditions for payment by all the insurance companies. Now with SINGLE payer, that goes away as does AT LEAST half the overhead.

 

Doctors may be overpaid, but right now, most are also overworked. My suggestion was to use Midwives like the rest of the Western World, saving $102 Billion/year and giving a bunch of OB/GYNs the opportunity to "retrain" for family practice/General Practitioner - which is no retraining at all since virtually every GP has another speciality - mine's an internist.  Having fewer patients that they could spend more time with each visit will eliminate a great deal of stress for our MDs while improving their diagnosis and that cannot help but improve our "outcomes".

 

As for drugs, I'd like us to simply demand as a condition of enforcing their patents, they sell to Americans at the lowest price they charge anywhere else in the World, but limiting their prices to what the drug goes for in the EU would net us at least a 25% reduction, or a savings of $82 Billion/year

 

Then we MUST remove the AMA from any role in deciding how many slots are available in Medical School - their attempts to restrict the supply to increase the price has led to a disasterous shortage of MDs - we'd need 252,000 more right now to get to the EU's doctor/patient ratio.

 

There's no magic in "percent of GDP", BUT we can look at what makes our system cost twice as much as #2 yet delivers outcomes at #37, and I'm reasonably certain it has nothingto do with GDP ratios - that's what I've done, and shaving $200Billion/year is a piece of cake IF we have no Republicans blocking the road.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
302
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
297
Views

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

297 Views
Message 17 of 126

Never has a thread shown why we have a health care system problem. When people do not understand a subject you will have so much misinformation being put out you end up with total cacaos, and we have it here. We have articles thrown up as back up which only cover one small part but are used as if they apply to the total system. You have to cover the total system to find any answer, and until you do that you just waste time. You can cut the total costs of health care. To do that everyone must be covered as a starter, and that is true in our current system. ER Care is that final place they are covered. Er Care is the most expansive, and least effective care in the system so you need to get people out of that. A medi care for all approach would cut costs, and the experts know that based on what it did for age 65 and over. Providers not accepting cost control is a problem in a few areas of the US. South mainly. You fix that by law period. Yes govt. has to take part in this area. There never has been and never will be a free market in medical care. The only people who think there was are what I call far right, and they will never change.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
297
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
264
Views

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

264 Views
Message 18 of 126

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

What is being proposed is Universal, Single-Payer NOT "Medicare For All" -that's just a convenient label.

As for the probable savings, the $2 Trillion over 10 years is only applicable if Republicans continue to hold majorities, otherwise the savings are astronomically higher.

 

Back in the 1980's Reagan's Surgeon General had a study done showing hospitals could reduce their administrative costs by half if we just got 3 standardized versions of Insurance Claims forms to replace the hundreds then in use.

 

Hospitals account for $1.1 Trillion of our ANNUAL health care costs, and 30% is for administration. Getting rid of ALL those forms would save at least half the overhead, or $165 Billion EACH YEAR. Standardizing reimbursement according to VA guidelines would eliminate the need for hospitals to maintain their felonious "Charge Master" systems, saving another $5 Billion in overhead.

 

Using Midwives for "uncomplicated deliveries" is the rule in every other industrialized country, and they all have much better rates of infant mortality than we do. The cost of delivery by midwife in the highest cost country (the UK) is $7,000 while the average cost for an uncomplicated hospital delivery in the US  is $32,500. That $25,500 reduction for 4 million uncomplicated births each year saves another $22.5 Billion.

 

The study claiming savings $2 Trillion in 10 years thought we could cut $84.6Billion/year from our bill for pharmacuticals, but the FACT is Big Pharma sells their drugs to the rest of the world for HALF what Americans pay. The cost of prescription drugs is $329 Billion/year, cutting the cost to whatever the lowest price the companies accept would save $160 Billion per year, and giving them a fantastic break, we could accept a 25% reduction and save $80 Billion and still pay more than everyone else for the same drugs.

 

There - just THREE things that we know can be reduced give us annual savings of $272.5 BILLION, or $2.7 Trillion over 10 years. All we need to make this happen is VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.


Your track record on throwing out numbers leaves a lot to be desired.

My record is impeccable. Your's consists of ignoring reality in favor of Fox.

You have yet to provide a single data set for ANY of your claims, so its obvious to even a casual observer no thought was given to your denial of truth.

 

Have you given any thought to the effect lawyers have on medical costs. Between defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, and all those ads that make us demand stuff that the docs will prescribe just to avoid getting sued.

A great deal of thought actually - Medical malpractice insurance is less than 3% of the cost of health care in the USA, so unlike the lies  Republicans like to tell, its inconsequential. The real fix is the 1% of Doctors who rack up 30% of the claims need have their licenses revoked after the third strike. Ending advertizing of prescription drugs and medical procedures would be a fantastic idea - glad you see the light on that issue.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
264
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
270
Views

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

270 Views
Message 19 of 126

@gordyfl wrote:

Who's gonna make doc's accept that much less when they were already really upset with their pay before the doc fix a few years ago.

 

Not all doctors think the way you think they think.

 

 


I am sure that you will always find some doc's who feel that way.  

 

 https://khn.org/news/once-its-greatest-foes-doctors-are-embracing-single-payer/

 

Course they were already making more than their neighboring provinces and probably had longer wait times for certain procedures.

 

Washington Post 03/08/2018

The average salary for a specialist in Quebec is already high — $403,537 annually — compared with $367,154 in neighboring Ontario, according to CBC. “The only thing that seems to be immune to the [health-care system] cuts is our salaries,” the petition by MQRP, the doctors group, stated.

 

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?

 

How much is enough to keep them and even MORE of them coming into medicine for our population numbers in very different areas of our country; some places being blessed with lots of medical infrastructure - others, not so much.

 

Look at the number of private profit making hospitals we have compared to public ones - even not for profit hospitals have to have an administrator running them.

 

Our public hospital hired an expensive administrator to help them turn things around several years ago when they were having financial problems - he did by making a name for the hospital in specific areas of care to bring in more higher paying customers.

 

Look at the problems with the VA health care system where doctors are employed by the system - never enough of them especially in some specialties.

 

We can't even get enough psychiatrist into our system - public or private.

 

I just don't see how this sort of cost reduction will work - but if you think so, we should be able to some of it right now.  

 

Edited to add this link

Canada CBC 2016 - Should Canada Have A Hybrid Public-Private Healthcare System?.

 

 

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
270
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
267
Views

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

267 Views
Message 20 of 126

@Olderscout66 wrote:

What is being proposed is Universal, Single-Payer NOT "Medicare For All" -that's just a convient label.

As for the probable savings, the $2 Trillion over 10 years is only applicable if Republicans continue to hold majorities, otherwise the savings are astronomically higher.

 

Back in the 1980's Reagan's Surgeon General had a study done showing hospitals could reduce their administrative costs by half if we just got 3 standardized versions of Insurance Claims forms to replace the hundreds then in use.

 

Hospitals account for $1.1 Trillion of our ANNUAL health care costs, and 30% is for administration. Getting rid of ALL those forms would save at least half the overhead, or $165 Billion EACH YEAR. Standardizing reimbursement according to VA guidelines would eliminate the need for hospitals to maintain their felonous "Charge Master" systems, saving another $5 Billion in overhead.

 

Using Midwives for "uncomplicate deliveries" is the rule in every other industrialized country, and they all have much better rates of infant mortality than we do. The cost of delivery by midwife in the highest cost country (the UK) is $7,000 while the average cost for an uncomplicated hospital delivery in the US  is $32,500. That $25,500 reduction for 4 million uncomplicated births each year saves another $22.5 Billion.

 

The study claiming savings $2 Trillion in 10 years thought we could cut $84.6Billion/year from our bill for pharmacuticals, but the FACT is Big Pharma sells their drugs to the rest of the world for HALF what Americans pay. The cost of prescription drugs is $329 Billion/year, cutting the cost to whatever the lowest price the companies accept would save $160 Billion per year, and giving them a fantastic break, we could accept a 25% reduction and save $80 Billion and still pay more than everyone else for the same drugs.

 

There - just THREE things that we know can be reduced give us annual savings of $272.5 BILLION, or $2.7 Trillion over 10 years. All we need to make this happen is VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.


Your track record on throwing out numbers leaves a lot to be desired. But you did have an interesting thought - every pol promising "Medicare for all" is lying.

 

Have you given any thought to the effect lawyers have on medical costs. Between defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, and all those ads that make us demand stuff that the docs will prescribe just to avoid getting sued.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
267
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