You say defense spending is extremely important and needs loads of cash. Then, you point to our democratic process which is NOT getting defended. And, that is MY point, not yours. If we hadn't decided to conquer Afg and Iraq, we could have at least $3 trillion dollars more than we have now. And, we could have spent a tiny fraction of that DEFENDING AMERICA!!! But, we don't. WHY??? I thought you said defending America is important
Okay, that's known as a Part B Buy Back benefit. So that means you're on a Medicare Advantage Plan. So if you're on a Medicare Advantage Plan, aka Part C or MAPD, there is no 80/20 split you need to worry about. Although you need to have A&B, the standard way Medicare works doesn't apply because you're handing over your care to a private carrier. Most MAPD plans have an out-of-pocket maximum, which means that is the most you will pay in copays and coinsurance before the plan pays 100% of everything. Generally, a Medicare Advantage plan already has Rx coverage. Is this what you're being told by your agent? Something sounds fishy. It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
MediCare for All with no insurance company involved is fine if we know, ARE THERE DONUTS HOLES? MediCare for all with insurance companies = ObamaCare = rip off. An option for Private Coverage is good too except FORBID HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS from accepting both. Providers should be either government or private. Not Both. Moi Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
So does this mean you still couldn't find the links? I've written pretty extensively on healthcare on this forum and tried to provide you with a pretty good survey of my thoughts on healthcare, and once again, I see I've wasted my time.
It's like in the rest of the industrialized world. If there aren't enough doctors and nurses, we'll have to pay them more. Regardless of what anyone says, if we need more doctors thats what we're going to do. One way Medicare works today is that Medicare is in front. You basically register your private coverage to come next - so whatever Mecicare doesn't cover is passed to the private coverage. If they don't cover it, then it is passed to you. That's somewhat simplified, I'm sure. I agree that it doesn't make sense to have both government and private insurance sitting at the lunch table doing the slow reach for the bill.
If you cover everything, then the cost of insurance will be cripplingly expensive. There isn't a single healthcare system or private insurance that will cover absolutely everything no matter how expensive.
Bernie's plan actually covers end of life care really well. His plan even helps pay for long-term care like in nursing homes. That is actually pretty rare in private insurance. I would keep the existing coverage of Medicare myself, but he wants to really expand its coverage.
I agree that Bernie's plan is very bad. There are plenty of nations with universal healthcare where there is still a big role for private insurance and individual responsibility for healthcare costs.
Those special needs plans are private plans, and I want to give them as much choice as possible. So if I were running things, people with special needs could get a supplemental private insurance in addition to their free basic public insurance, replace their public insurance with a private insurance and a subsidy to help pay, or move to a high coverage public insurance with a premium, or pay out of pocket.
The 75% (or 71% if you insist) who are totally or mostly satisfied with their insurance accounts for the heavy dissatisfaction with affordability. It was more like 85% to 90% before we took the first step toward single payer with the ACA aka NotACA which drove the costs of private insurance through the roof. I have little faith in the polls, surveys, and government pronouncements that countries with universal healthcare provide better care than we do at a cheaper cost than we do. An example is the ballyhooing about how Medicare's administrative costs are far less than private insurance companies only because most of Medicare's cost of operation is under the covers and off the books. Another oft-quoted theme is how our life expectancy is lower than that of government provided insurance. Life expectancy is heavily skewed by birth death rates. We count a birth death no matter when the delivery is made. Most other countries don't account for early deliveries and many say if the baby dies within a few days or so of delivery that doesn't count as a birth death. These are just two of many ways statistics get roiled.
Doctors will face an unlimited and unrestrained demand and get paid at less rate than they do today which barely covers their cost of providing today's care. A ton of current doctors will conclude it is not worth it and get out if they can. Many if not most if not all government run health services have major difficulties getting and retaining staff.
How is it every other nation with universal healthcare still have doctors? And why do you believe doctors in US currently get paid at a rate that “barely covers their cost of providing care”?
Many doctors and nurses will give it up, but many will not. They will hang around wishing they had done something else and getting through their patients as fast as they can. Still others will work for less because it is their calling. Of the one GP, three specialists, and two surgeons I've seen over the past decade two have said they will get out if Medicare gets any worse. Medicare pays about $5 for an office run EKG at my heart doctor. It cost more than that for the aide to open the door and wheel the cart in.
Thanks. That's even better. Yes. Most companies have a selection of Advantage plans. My wife's Advantage plan is free of charge because she doesn't have part D in it. Mine costs about $300 per year because it does. I view that as paying for part D. If you know of a free plan with part D included, please let me know.
People hate to have their income reduced. It is human nature. The doctors complain about it just like you would.
Of course but printing money feeds inflation. It is why my current U.S. dollar is worth less than 10% of what it did when I was in college.
Seems like you’re backtracking on your previous statement that there will be no doctors. As for your claim that Medicare pays $5 for office run EKG, which procedure code(s) are you referring to? I have access to the 2020 Medicare National Physician Fee Schedule, due to my job, so I’ll be able to look up the payment. I noticed you didn’t answer my question on why you believe doctors currently get paid at a rate that “barely covers their cost of providing care”?
If he is president, he certainly won't. In fact a Medicare for all plan can't even be passed. Its more likely that a public option plan is passed, if even that happens.
Then I have little faith in your poll that says 71% are satisfied with their private insurance. The birth death rate is very tiny and won't throw off life expectancy by much. And you didn't list the countries that don't list birth deaths.
I wouldn't do that myself, and I don't think there is enough political support to do this, but that is Bernies plan. It will be very expensive though.
I don't have access to nor do I comprehend the godawful new (with ACA) procedure coding any more than many in the profession do. The ~$5 payment for an office EKG was an anecdotal example where doctors are not paid much over their cost of provision, in this example actually less.
Haha...so basically you have no idea what you’re taking about. Just as I figured. And the Medicare reimbursement on the physician fee schedule that I work with has nothing to do with ACA. More proof you don’t have a clue what you’re taking about.