Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Second largest Dr. group in US now favors either Medicare for all or public option.

This is pretty big, but lost in all the news of late for obvious reasons, but the second largest group of Doctors in the country, now either facors a medicare for all OR a public option.

 

Second largest group of Doctors in U.S. favors either Medicare for all or public option. 

Honored Social Butterfly

   I find it quite amusing that some are talking about Choice, as if that is less expensive.    Who are the physician groups that are complaining the loudest:   specialized folks and those who have purchased their own hospitals.    Capitalism invaded healthcare and became less a service and more of a business / comodity.   

     There is alternate discussions:  will anybody read and reflect on the preconceived notions that some are spouting?   

 

     Here in TX the highest paid State Employee is a Football coach, not head of a public healthcare facility.   HMMMMMM

 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-many-bad-arguments-against-medicare-for-all

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
0 Kudos
275 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

One of the great aspects of Obamacare is it made PREVENTIVE CARE free to the patient. This was a huge change for both the patient and the insurance companies. Everyone in the medical field knows it's a lot easier, and far less expensive, to treat a problem if it's caught early. 

Honored Social Butterfly

It's really very simple and arguments against it try to make it seem complicated.

 

Countries with universal health care plans lead America in health care statistics across the board.

 

America spends more per person for health care than countries with universal health care plans and falls behind them in health statistics.

 

Doctors and providers cannot 'opt out' of participating if there is only one plan.

 

A single payer universal health care plan brings better health statistics and costs less per person that what The United States has.

 

Politics and $Billions$ spent on lobbying and in our elections by Insurance Giants, Giant Pharma, and Giant Providers are the enemy of better health care for all Americans at lower costs.

 

 


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

I don't think that anybody is arguing against "Universal" coverage - the dilemma is how to achieve it without breaking the bank - the individuals and the governments.

 

If we reduce the cost - more people could probably afford it.

What works and what doesn't - we spend a lot of money on stuff that does not work.  We also spend a lot of money repeating and repeating cause there is no flow of information.

 

There was a study that was started a while back on the benefits of treating the whole person to keep them out of the hospital when there were factors like homelessness, addiction, mental illness.  It sounded good -

 

But it failed - in fact several of them failed.  But do you think that is stopping those who think it SHOULD work.

KHN 01/24/2020 - Despite New Doubts, ‘Hotspotting’ Help For Heavy Health Care Users Marches On 

 

Sure docs can decide not to participate in "a plan" - they can retire, they can decide to pursue other areas instead of medicine, they can go the concierge route - we are still a free country.

 

Look at drug negotiations - you aren't gonna get a very good price if the law says that everything has to be covered. 

 

Think all countries participate in "orphan disease" cures and medicine - nope - but we do.

 

Where is the logic in having the EXACT SAME procedure performed in a doctors office and at an out-patient hospital facility, when we pay the hospital more than the doctor's office for the EXACT SAME procedure.

 

We do a lot of stupid stuff like that which adds up the total cost.

0 Kudos
369 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

I don't think that anybody is arguing against "Universal" coverage - the dilemma is how to achieve it without breaking the bank


I think that the second largest Doctor's group in America has it right. The Pharmas, Insurance Companies, and Big Corporate Care givers cringe at a single payer, or Medicare for all. Everyone in one group can reduce costs for pharmaceuticals and all aspects of health care, just like it has everywhere else in the world, and their health statistics are far better than ours.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

I don't think that anybody is arguing against "Universal" coverage - the dilemma is how to achieve it without breaking the bank


I think that the second largest Doctor's group in America has it right. The Pharmas, Insurance Companies, and Big Corporate Care givers cringe at a single payer, or Medicare for all. Everyone in one group can reduce costs for pharmaceuticals and all aspects of health care, just like it has everywhere else in the world, and their health statistics are far better than ours.


That does not mean it has to be a single payer system. 

This is from the ACP:

https://acp.silverchair-cdn.com/acp/content_public/journal/aim/938337/m192415tt1_table_health_insurance_system_models.jpeg?Expires=1580085803&Signature=dLwkBVEqmCWNcqjn9SDLJRsafFK2bKdPD-CCy5tY52e4t2Bm9DO~PjuCWy9ToNM0JzGX~PADyhdGfSZxAMhebrEVThooDG8-tXw0wsHkDMeOqDjbB6hGP-c~2IA0OOqk9OCNu~CzhPCe6L93sy9ubPdSI14E1HJROCBghgjswzdaKHfiFRUlC52NMBlICmEepF~FCkM25KLiCUIPqfuMGzcOETC~GLSeEG-ue123rzKGp~rlNe1xM5hF9NXun2uO9o~-vHZWSTvDKQy1hudSZmlAqPmnOqHJcQVGHRk8BAASY2J9jqUShhGLyRubENFT5HL0fuoNgft2A1QkgPSmEA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

 

AND they all do more than us to control cost, among other things.

Commonwealth Fund: International Healthcare System Profiles - Health system Features 

 

From regulating the number of doctors and other workforce, to the concentration of health care infrastructure, to approving what is the best treatment for the best cost in all areas - to setting very strict global budgets.

0 Kudos
325 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

I don't think that anybody is arguing against "Universal" coverage - the dilemma is how to achieve it without breaking the bank


I think that the second largest Doctor's group in America has it right. The Pharmas, Insurance Companies, and Big Corporate Care givers cringe at a single payer, or Medicare for all. Everyone in one group can reduce costs for pharmaceuticals and all aspects of health care, just like it has everywhere else in the world, and their health statistics are far better than ours.


That does not mean it has to be a single payer system. 

This is from the ACP:

https://acp.silverchair-cdn.com/acp/content_public/journal/aim/938337/m192415tt1_table_health_insurance_system_models.jpeg?Expires=1580085803&Signature=dLwkBVEqmCWNcqjn9SDLJRsafFK2bKdPD-CCy5tY52e4t2Bm9DO~PjuCWy9ToNM0JzGX~PADyhdGfSZxAMhebrEVThooDG8-tXw0wsHkDMeOqDjbB6hGP-c~2IA0OOqk9OCNu~CzhPCe6L93sy9ubPdSI14E1HJROCBghgjswzdaKHfiFRUlC52NMBlICmEepF~FCkM25KLiCUIPqfuMGzcOETC~GLSeEG-ue123rzKGp~rlNe1xM5hF9NXun2uO9o~-vHZWSTvDKQy1hudSZmlAqPmnOqHJcQVGHRk8BAASY2J9jqUShhGLyRubENFT5HL0fuoNgft2A1QkgPSmEA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

 

AND they all do more than us to control cost, among other things.

Commonwealth Fund: International Healthcare System Profiles - Health system Features 

 

From regulating the number of doctors and other workforce, to the concentration of health care infrastructure, to approving what is the best treatment for the best cost in all areas - to setting very strict global budgets.


Medicare for all would put everyone in the same pool and the strongest negotiating power possible to lower the cost of drugs and services. Sure, other things would change too, but health care would be better and health statistics would too. I'm sick of hearing excuses and whining about how impossible it is when all other developed nations have some kind of universal health care. We have lagged behind in health statistics and spent too much money for too long. It's time to change that.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

personally I favor medicare for all as an opt in. If you want to keep your private insurance you can, then chances are you will hear about and see that your out of pocket expenses are lower on Medicare you will decide to go with medicare. I also favor a strong public option such as I will have in Washington State:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/16/723843559/will-washington-states-new-public-opt...
0 Kudos
232 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Here is the actual policy paper from the American College of Physicians on the subject.

ACP - Annals of Internal Medicine 01/21/2020- Envisioning a Better U.S. Health Care System for All: ...

 

It seems to be pretty honest about our problems and it seems to point out some of the problem in the remedies  - which will have to either be lived with or dealt with one way or another as other countries have done.

 

You should read it as well as others here, just so we can have an honest conversation.

We can count ourselves lucky since this policy paper is free - most of their publications aren't free.

 

Do keep in mind that they are gonna be shielding their pay as much as possible regardless of what they are supporting - they have done it before.  They did it when the ACA (Federal) Medicaid pay increase dissolved after the (2) year time limit - if the state didn't keep the rate increase, many of them dropped being a participant in the Medicaid program.

 

In the policy paper, they point out that both rates paid to physicians under the Medicare and Medicaid program are inadequate already.  They also give this note in Part 2, so just keep that in mind as you are reading it:  In this paper, ACP uses the word “provider” only when citing sources that use the term to describe health care facilities and clinicians that include physicians, in which case we put it in quotation marks. The ACP itself does not use “provider” to describe physicians because it is an economic term that devalues their skills, training, and contributions to patient care).

 

It is an interesting paper -but of course there is no analysis of how much either would cost and what funding measures would be used.

 

And of course, it is like anything else, people will like "it" (whatever "it" might be) as long as they see benefit for themselves ( health- and dollar-wise) and that includes what they might be getting now that doesn't make the cut to quality care.  Which drugs get covered, how treatments are rated as best value - protochols for receiving some treatments or meds to help make that QUALITY care success rate increase.

 

0 Kudos
447 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

“The nation's existing health care system is inefficient, unaffordable, unsustainable, and inaccessible to many.” It sure is!!!!!
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png