What is single payer?

Altering my quotations is a rule violation. Next time it will be reported.

Nonsense!

MRI's can be leased and it often makes better business sense to lease equipment rather than purchase it outright.

Ironic given that what you quoted originally was out of context.

So now you are opposed to capitalism?

Irony squared!

- - - Updated - - -

Ironic in all respects!

 

Well...There's no way to sugar coat it..there will be winners and losers no mater what happens now.

Which slot will you fit in?

1.Abolish the mandate of the ACA, we lose covering pre-existing conditions, and once again denial of claim letters will flood mail boxes.

2.We abolish the ACA all together, .X happens, then Darwin law takes effect. Employers still on the hook for full time employees, so I see more money coming out of paychecks. Epipen ripoffs, etc

3.We move to single payer system, Insurance company's lose out. Country moves forward freeing employers of the burden, more money in everyone's pockets. Customer freedom, Doctors rake in more profit, offices get built, etc.

4.Trumpcare. Explained, in a bit.

5.Socialized medicine is out of the question. Never should be brought up.

I like single payer, that is my opinion. Then again I like a thriving economy.

Some here think Free market insurance running unregulated and without oversight is the best idea, that is Trumpcare In my opinion.

 

You also ignore the substantial administrative cost that Medicare shifts to the providers of care.

Ignored also are the contractors that process claims for Medicare. According to the GAO (General Accounting Office), there are as of February 2015, 16 Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC) administered claims submitted by Medicare providers and suppliers.

In fiscal year 2013, MACs processed almost 1.2 billion claims totaling more than $363 billion in Medicare payments.

Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669947.pdf

 

A single payer system means just that, one payer for all insurance policies. Even worst that the PPACA. Even less competition and likely lower reimbursements while premiums even higher.

Obama care has not lowered the cost of health care. There are two costs, the cost of health insurance and the cost of PROVIDING care. Neither have been lowered. Only the reimbursements to providers have gone down only to lower payment not lower cost. So doctors aren't making but nmany losing money. That won't last long. Go Trump!

 

Will you feel the same way if medical care was denied like any other service unless you paid for it first? You have a 50,000 operation, your credit score say 700 and they will only give you 35,000. What will you do?

 

Of course, the government will buy drugs in bulk and is free to shop around in the world market. It’s called competition and lack of competition is why Americans pay far more for drugs than we do.

 

Agreed, how could an argument even be made. never mind goverment grants to Research Universities like Brown etc, where
they do the research, develop a treatment, form a company and licence the drug and make millions while working under a federal grant.

 

Everybody on Obamacare dies.

- - - Updated - - -

The single payer is government just like the VA.

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh, you ignore the total cost of overhead of government compared with the total cost of overhead with health insurance companies.

- - - Updated - - -

In case you ever paid attention, because of the rising cost of healthcare insurance companies had to find a way to keep it affordable. Their profit margins are low because healthcare costs $$$$.

 

No, I did not ignore the "total cost of overhead of government" because it does not apply. Only that part that applies to CMS is comparable which would be the overhead of 6000 employees and their benefits.

Private HC insurers failed miserably at "keeping it affordable" and ended driving up costs instead. They created an inflationary spiral of HC costs which was the exact opposite of what they were tasked with doing.

Single payer is far superior when it comes to providing affordable HC to everyone.

 

First- I would borrow $12,500 rather than $50,00. Then, I would pick one of the all-expense paid medical tourism packages now widely available, and go to Spain for the surgery. Including the airfare, accommodations and insurance, you can get equal or better surgical treatment there for 25% of what it costs in the USA. If you don't want to see Spain, there are dozens of such places to choose from. You see, our stupidity in allowing government to manage medicine is driving much of that industries business and revenue overseas- just as it has with clothing, electronics and a multitude of other industries. That of course, further increases costs for medical facilities here, as they have fewer clients to distribute their overhead too. Failing to be competitive always destroys an industry. Giving control of it to bureaucrats does the same thing.

On the other hand- I learned long ago that if you are prepared, most surprises in life are inconveniences. If you are not, those same surprises are crisis, which then disrupt your life course and create more crisis- and that can destroy all your plans and dreams. Understanding that, I long ago learned to manage my money and affairs so that I am prepared.Today, if I had needed an emergency operation costing 50K that did not allow me to travel and I did not have insurance (which I do) - I would simply write a check. Of course, I would also curse the jackasses that made our system work that way- but that's just personal reaction to the stupidity of it.

I am a cancer survivor- diagnosed with a very dangerous cancer many years ago, but fortunately found early by accident. At the time, I was nearly broke. I had cancelled my health insurance to help me recover financially. By talking with my doctor and hospital, explaining my circumstances and what I could do, they were willing to help and dramatically reduced the cost of the surgery- actually, reduced it 90%. I paid for the entire episode myself over the next year. So lacking resources then, I still managed the situation successfully by approaching it outside the system.

 

Evidently you don't understand what the cost of overhead consist of. Ignoring all the costs gives you an apples to oranges comparison which of course you prefer because it is not apples to apples.

You also don't seem to understand what health-insurance is. It is just a method to cover costs not a method to control costs. Healthcare insurance companies have no control over cost of healthcare.

You are only fooling yourself to think that single payer will be less expensive. The only way to make it less expensive is to provide less service. That is how Natasha Richardson died.

 

So what?

How does any of that change the fact that Medicare provided about 40% of all medical services at about only 20% of the total health care cost as my data showed?

 

If the production of all pharmaceuticals was moved abroad along with some of the research it could reduce the cost of drugs tremendously.

 

I don't think we'll be going to full scale government controlled healthcare.

Strawman. Nobody is suggesting we have no oversight.

 

Some insist that there should be multiple superfluous middlemen extracting a considerable chunk of every health care dollar - corporate profit, astronomically-recompensed executives, marketing, lobbying, sales commissions, endlessly-duplicated administrative functions, etc, etc., etc. - and even after all that elaborate falderal, the medical expenses of millions of uninsured are routinely dumped on the taxpayer - not to mention that all who are covered under employer-administered plans are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer as well.

And your medical care is under the control of bottom-line bureaucrats, not answerable public servants.

Clearly, the disastrous system is a fatted cash cow for those who gorge off it, and they pull the strings of their ideological dupes to perpetuate their ravenous appetite.

Covering everyone under a single-payer system would drastically reduce administrative cost, eliminate the huge payroll for the parasites, cancel the enormous annual taxpayer subsidy for employer-administered plans (while allowing private capitalistic enterprises to focus on their business,) and create the maximal risk pool to achieve the actuarial ideal.

Incrementally incorporating lower age categories into Medicare would introduce lower-cost demographics into what is the highest one (one that the profiteers willingly consign to the government.)

A vast industry that is now propped up by the clinging to the untenable would be largely eliminated, but a gradual phase-out would ease the economic disruption, and "boutique" private plans could still be offered to those who want and can afford them.

There are powerful, self-interested forces to resist progress, but that does not mean that we can't recognize it.

 

Health policy wonks point out that the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea,
advocated by academics and conservative thinkers as a way to avoid a government-run single-payer system.​

The Great Flatu's replacing the Affordable Care Act with "something terrific!" may demand a bit more specificity.

 

To a liberal illiterate a monopoly will always appear to be more efficient. A libcommie govt monopoly is worst yet since it can kill any competition that would arise against monopolistic pricing and poor quality. Marx started the idea of govt monopoly, it killed 120 million, and yet liberals, being illiterate, don't know the history. How sad for America.

 

Simple, capitalism since it would reduce prices by 80% and extend our lives by 10-20 years. Ever heard of East/West Germany? How would you like to have your parents for another 10-20 years?

 

All I have to say on the matter is the government can't even keep in control, social security, Medicaid, inflation, and so much more. We have a debt of 21 trillion dollars. 100 dollar bills laid end to end, would go to the moon and back, to the moon and back, to the moon and back, to the moon and half way back. And that is only 1 trillion dollars. With bonds and unfunded liabilities, we are about 120 trillion in debt. And people want the government to take care of healthcare? Unbelievable!!!

 

For those interested in the Canadian system, this comes pretty close and covers both sides the good and the bad depending on how you feel about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/

 

govt programs always fail and when they do the liberal always claims a bigger govt program is the simple solution. This is why govt is now bigger than ever and the only solution for a liberal is still bigger govt. Its so stupid it can only be described as, well, liberal.

 

Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity!

 

stealing 15% of everyone's life time income at gunpoint and giving them back dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny is a success to a liberal.In truth Americans could retire with an estate of $1.4 million with the same money in a private account. With SS you retire with no estate!! That's a success to a liberal clown!!

Capitalism made all Americans rich then liberals stole the money in true soviet style!!

 

In fact, the soviets had about 20% of our standard of living as did the East Germans thanks to govt monopoly programs.

 

More made up numbers. Hilarious. We need more democratic socialism.....not less

- - - Updated - - -

What is the Scandinavian standard of living? Lol