|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 8, 2018 19:55:47 GMT
I'm continuously disgusted by the completely lack of empathy for those who suffer through no fault of their own. I've had 2 former students who have had glioblastomas. If it weren't for the ACA, they wouldn't have had health insurance. For every anecdotal story of how someone's premiums have gone insane, there is a counter story. If the government had focused on fixing what was wrong with the ACA instead of purposely sabotaging it, we could care for more of our citizens instead of only the totally solvent, incredibly healthy ones who know everything. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 8, 2018 19:58:39 GMT
How would you pay for it? California looked into it and found they couldn’t come up with a feasible way to pay for it. That was for just 40M people. The feds would have to come up with a plan to pay for 320M. At some point we may get there but probably not in my lifetime because there is no magic wand to wave and make it so. There is a lot of truth in the saying “the devil is in the details”. Until then, the sensible plan would have been to fix the ACA, which could have been done, until they could figure out how to shift 100’s of millions of people to Medicare with bankrupting the country in the process. I'm curious how much the public is currently paying for health care costs. I hear these statements like, "The Feds would need to come up with 320M" and wonder how that compares to what we are already paying as individuals.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 8, 2018 20:05:38 GMT
Obama care is a nightmare. Everyone I know has had their insurance rates triple. Anything that dismantles this nightmare is ok by me. Just an example: I have a friend who goes through Obamacare for his insurance. He pays full price no subsidies. In 2017 his premium was $447. In 2018, his premium went to $589. He just received notice that in 2019 his premium will go up to $897. Why? Because of all the people the insurance company has to pay out for. He can't afford this and won't have insurance come 2019. Never since Obama care has been enacted has he even met his deductible. In effect, people with pre-existing conditions feel that their need trumps (excuse the pun) the needs of everyone else. Why should my friend have to be priced out of the insurance market just so that others can get high-cost care? The really stupid part is that should he ever become ill, he can simply purchase insurance to obtain his own high cost care. So, the insurance market will lose his premium dollars for years but when he becomes a liability, he can just get coverage and have it paid for. This is why the insurance market is floundering and it's exactly what Obama wanted; the insurance industry to fail so that he could enact a single payor system. Talk about stealthy. Not saying this to be snarky, but do you truly understand what is considered to be a pre-existing condition and how changes made to cover people with pre-existing conditions affects society overall? Also, in your scenario, if your friend waited until he was sick to get insurance, he would not be able to do so if there was no protection for pre-existing conditions. For example, my sister and her husband didn't have insurance. They thought that the premiums were too high, they are young and low risk, healthy, etc. Well, he got into a bad four wheeler accident. His high deductible (had they gotten the policy) would have been met within an hour of him being taken to the hospital. Since there was no clause about pre-existing conditions, they were able to enroll in the insurance starting the month after his accident. But they still had to declare bankruptcy because of the costs prior to the start of their coverage. Like others have said, something can happen to any of us that can make us "high cost" in regards to insurance. At my job, the insurance people explained that rates would be going up next year because a few people had babies and two people (or their spouses) had hip replacements. The insurance/health care issue is complex. We do pay a lot, but we also have to realize that as a country we require a lot of care. There are more and more people with cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, autism, and other illnesses that are often caused by or compounded by our lifestyle and our environment (chemicals in food and water, pollution, etc). We need to find ways to prevent illness, not just treat it. @#notlauren I am curious what type of insurance you have?
|
|
|
Post by susancinpa on Jun 8, 2018 20:10:03 GMT
As long as medical care is for-profit, costs are going to continue to rise. It's going to be extremely hard, if not impossible, to move healthcare to non-profit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 20:13:42 GMT
How would you pay for it? California looked into it and found they couldn’t come up with a feasible way to pay for it. That was for just 40M people. The feds would have to come up with a plan to pay for 320M. At some point we may get there but probably not in my lifetime because there is no magic wand to wave and make it so. There is a lot of truth in the saying “the devil is in the details”. Until then, the sensible plan would have been to fix the ACA, which could have been done, until they could figure out how to shift 100’s of millions of people to Medicare with bankrupting the country in the process. I'm curious how much the public is currently paying for health care costs. I hear these statements like, "The Feds would need to come up with 320M" and wonder how that compares to what we are already paying as individuals. If CA couldn’t figure how to do it then it would appear not enough. I think they figured the cost for health care alone would total more than the total budget for CA.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 20:52:01 GMT
We are supposedly the greatest country on earth. Then why are so many other countries so successful at providing healthcare for all of their residents? Don’t say it’s because they’re “smaller”. We could do this if we WORKED TOGETHER and stopped making excuses. If you take the population of Europe at 740 million or thereabouts, more than double the population of the US. Every country in Europe has some form of universal healthcare for their citizens. You're right, it is possible if you compare all those countries together to the US by population. As for California not able to do so with 40 million, many European countries have a population far in excess of 40 million so it is possible if the will was there. The US is the only “very highly developed country” that doesn’t have universal healthcare out of over 50 nation.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Jun 8, 2018 21:28:07 GMT
NHS overwhelmed; waiting times increasingsurgery waiting numbers highest in years. NHS is under threatAnd this article states that while Brits love the NHS, people have to wait an average of 60 days to begin cancer treatment, non-emergency patients can wait 18 weeks to be admitted to the hospital. It's actually a pretty decent discussion of the differences between the US and Britain. The way I read these articles is that there just isn't enough doctors, nurses, staff or hospitals to deal with the health care of the English people in today's world. The US has a problem with people lacking the financial means for care and the English have a problem with the availability of care even though its "free". I just don't see how you can insist that the British way is better.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 8, 2018 21:39:35 GMT
NHS overwhelmed; waiting times increasingsurgery waiting numbers highest in years. NHS is under threatAnd this article states that while Brits love the NHS, people have to wait an average of 60 days to begin cancer treatment, non-emergency patients can wait 18 weeks to be admitted to the hospital. It's actually a pretty decent discussion of the differences between the US and Britain. The way I read these articles is that there just isn't enough doctors, nurses, staff or hospitals to deal with the health care of the English people in today's world. The US has a problem with people lacking the financial means for care and the English have a problem with the availability of care even though its "free". I just don't see how you can insist that the British way is better. Possibly in the fact that waiting (having/with insurance) is not equivalent to dying (not being able to afford insurance or being considered as pre-existing)..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 21:45:19 GMT
We are supposedly the greatest country on earth. Then why are so many other countries so successful at providing healthcare for all of their residents? Don’t say it’s because they’re “smaller”. We could do this if we WORKED TOGETHER and stopped making excuses. If you take the population of Europe at 740 million or thereabouts, more than double the population of the US. Every country in Europe has some form of universal healthcare for their citizens. You're right, it is possible if you compare all those countries together to the US by population. As for California not able to do so with 40 million, many European countries have a population far in excess of 40 million so it is possible if the will was there. The US is the only “very highly developed country” that doesn’t have universal healthcare out of over 50 nation. . I did a quick check. The majority of European Countries, Russia & Japan had some version of universal health care since the late 1940’s with Germany going all the way back to the late 1880’s. The difference between even the late 1940’s and now is cost. My guess if more of the countries had waited until now to put in their current version they would be like CA struggling to make it feasible and not bankrupt the state or country.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 8, 2018 22:01:01 GMT
If you take the population of Europe at 740 million or thereabouts, more than double the population of the US. Every country in Europe has some form of universal healthcare for their citizens. You're right, it is possible if you compare all those countries together to the US by population. As for California not able to do so with 40 million, many European countries have a population far in excess of 40 million so it is possible if the will was there. The US is the only “very highly developed country” that doesn’t have universal healthcare out of over 50 nation. . I did a quick check. The majority of European Countries, Russia & Japan had some version of universal health care since the late 1940’s with Germany going all the way back to the late 1880’s. The difference between even the late 1940’s and now is cost. My guess if more of the countries had waited until now to put in their current version they would be like CA struggling to make it feasible and not bankrupt the state or country. I've posted this stat a million times, but I'll do it again. We already pay more in GOVERNMENT money per capita than Canada, France, UK and every other country except Luxembourg - just covering Medicare/Medicaid and VA. All these are non-profit - all with relatively low reimbursement rate. And people think we're going to suddenly go from 30% to 100% coverage without drastic increases in funding or decreasing services? Really?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 22:03:21 GMT
NHS overwhelmed; waiting times increasingsurgery waiting numbers highest in years. NHS is under threatAnd this article states that while Brits love the NHS, people have to wait an average of 60 days to begin cancer treatment, non-emergency patients can wait 18 weeks to be admitted to the hospital. It's actually a pretty decent discussion of the differences between the US and Britain. The way I read these articles is that there just isn't enough doctors, nurses, staff or hospitals to deal with the health care of the English people in today's world. The US has a problem with people lacking the financial means for care and the English have a problem with the availability of care even though its "free". I just don't see how you can insist that the British way is better. You're trying to prove your point in a very futile way. ...the bolded part - THAT IS SIMPLE NOT TRUE.I can't be bothered to discuss the others with you,I could if I so wished and would have a very valid answer to all of them but there's no point in doing so. Our health cover isn't under discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 8, 2018 22:20:13 GMT
NHS overwhelmed; waiting times increasingsurgery waiting numbers highest in years. NHS is under threatAnd this article states that while Brits love the NHS, people have to wait an average of 60 days to begin cancer treatment, non-emergency patients can wait 18 weeks to be admitted to the hospital. It's actually a pretty decent discussion of the differences between the US and Britain. The way I read these articles is that there just isn't enough doctors, nurses, staff or hospitals to deal with the health care of the English people in today's world. The US has a problem with people lacking the financial means for care and the English have a problem with the availability of care even though its "free". I just don't see how you can insist that the British way is better. You're trying to prove your point in a very futile way. ...the bolded part - THAT IS SIMPLE NOT TRUE.I can't be bothered to discuss the others with you,I could if I so wished and would have a very valid answer to all of them but there's no point in doing so. Our health cover isn't under discussion here. This article states the target is 62 days from GP referral to start of treatment - is that inaccurate? www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/18/longest-waits-for-nhs-cancer-treatment-have-soared-since-2010-england
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 22:58:35 GMT
It depends how one defines start of treatment and I have no idea what the writer thinks is the start. The guidelines are after an urgent referral by their GP for suspected cancer they should see a consultant within two weeks.After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, patients should receive their first definitive treatment within a month (31 days) It could very well be 62 days by the time you start chemo. But the actual diagnostic tests/pathology tests/biopsy /possible surgery and all the incidental tests you have to get done before you actually start chemo/radiation if needed, would have started way before and within that 31 day target. It hasn't been my personal experience with the people I know that have had cancer that they have waited 62 days before anything at all is done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:01:34 GMT
. I did a quick check. The majority of European Countries, Russia & Japan had some version of universal health care since the late 1940’s with Germany going all the way back to the late 1880’s. The difference between even the late 1940’s and now is cost. My guess if more of the countries had waited until now to put in their current version they would be like CA struggling to make it feasible and not bankrupt the state or country. I've posted this stat a million times, but I'll do it again. We already pay more in GOVERNMENT money per capita than Canada, France, UK and every other country except Luxembourg - just covering Medicare/Medicaid and VA. All these are non-profit - all with relatively low reimbursement rate. And people think we're going to suddenly go from 30% to 100% coverage without drastic increases in funding or decreasing services? Really? I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 8, 2018 23:09:05 GMT
I've posted this stat a million times, but I'll do it again. We already pay more in GOVERNMENT money per capita than Canada, France, UK and every other country except Luxembourg - just covering Medicare/Medicaid and VA. All these are non-profit - all with relatively low reimbursement rate. And people think we're going to suddenly go from 30% to 100% coverage without drastic increases in funding or decreasing services? Really? I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others. Profits account for a small percentage of health care spending - 3-10%. Not enough to make the math work. This stat already excludes the insurers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:10:03 GMT
I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others. Profits account for a small percentage of health care spending - 3-10%. Not enough to make the math work. This stat already excludes the insurers. Nope. Multiply that 3-10% times the number of layers in the system.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:13:00 GMT
"Our list, done by the American Hospital Directory, is based on operating income figures that hospitals must report to the federal Medicare program each year. It found that 24 hospitals in the country with over 200 beds make an operating margin of 25% or more. That kind of profit margin compares favorably to drug giants like Pfizer , who are often vilified for charging too much for their drugs. It easily beats the operating profit margin that General Electric reported last year. The most profitable hospital in the country, 235-bed Flowers Medical Center in Dothan, Ala., recorded an incredible 53% operating margin. It is part of the big for-profit Community Health Systems chain in Brentwood, Tenn. Del Sol Medical Center in El Paso snared second place with an astronomical 45% operating margin. It's part of the big HCA chain, based in Nashville. Neither hospital returned calls asking for comment. After this story came out, Flowers Hospital disputed the figures in an e-mail. It says it overstated its revenue by an astonishing $180 million in its official report to Medicare and that its actual margin is 12%."' www.forbes.com/2010/08/30/profitable-hospitals-hca-healthcare-business-mayo-clinic
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:16:44 GMT
"About 67 percent of all drug companies saw an increase in their annual average profit margins from 2006 to 2015. Among the largest 25 companies, annual average profit margin fluctuated between 15 and 20 percent. " www.gao.gov/assets/690/688472.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:19:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:22:18 GMT
"The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them quite high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States — the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry — sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability." www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/15/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 8, 2018 23:26:28 GMT
"Our list, done by the American Hospital Directory, is based on operating income figures that hospitals must report to the federal Medicare program each year. It found that 24 hospitals in the country with over 200 beds make an operating margin of 25% or more. That kind of profit margin compares favorably to drug giants like Pfizer , who are often vilified for charging too much for their drugs. It easily beats the operating profit margin that General Electric reported last year. The most profitable hospital in the country, 235-bed Flowers Medical Center in Dothan, Ala., recorded an incredible 53% operating margin. It is part of the big for-profit Community Health Systems chain in Brentwood, Tenn. Del Sol Medical Center in El Paso snared second place with an astronomical 45% operating margin. It's part of the big HCA chain, based in Nashville. Neither hospital returned calls asking for comment. After this story came out, Flowers Hospital disputed the figures in an e-mail. It says it overstated its revenue by an astonishing $180 million in its official report to Medicare and that its actual margin is 12%."' www.forbes.com/2010/08/30/profitable-hospitals-hca-healthcare-business-mayo-clinicThe majority of hospitals are nonprofit - a few bad apples isn’t going to solve a 3x difference.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:29:43 GMT
"Our list, done by the American Hospital Directory, is based on operating income figures that hospitals must report to the federal Medicare program each year. It found that 24 hospitals in the country with over 200 beds make an operating margin of 25% or more. That kind of profit margin compares favorably to drug giants like Pfizer , who are often vilified for charging too much for their drugs. It easily beats the operating profit margin that General Electric reported last year. The most profitable hospital in the country, 235-bed Flowers Medical Center in Dothan, Ala., recorded an incredible 53% operating margin. It is part of the big for-profit Community Health Systems chain in Brentwood, Tenn. Del Sol Medical Center in El Paso snared second place with an astronomical 45% operating margin. It's part of the big HCA chain, based in Nashville. Neither hospital returned calls asking for comment. After this story came out, Flowers Hospital disputed the figures in an e-mail. It says it overstated its revenue by an astonishing $180 million in its official report to Medicare and that its actual margin is 12%."' www.forbes.com/2010/08/30/profitable-hospitals-hca-healthcare-business-mayo-clinicThe majority of hospitals are nonprofit - a few bad apples isn’t going to solve a 3x difference. No, but all the other areas of for-profit hosp (the big centers for people w/serious conditions) plus the multiple tens of layers of profit will.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:32:31 GMT
I've posted this stat a million times, but I'll do it again. We already pay more in GOVERNMENT money per capita than Canada, France, UK and every other country except Luxembourg - just covering Medicare/Medicaid and VA. All these are non-profit - all with relatively low reimbursement rate. And people think we're going to suddenly go from 30% to 100% coverage without drastic increases in funding or decreasing services? Really? I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others. Even if you take out profits it still comes down the cost of providing the care. Are you going to tell those who work in the medical field they have to take less in salary and benefits? Are you going to tell those who push medical technology that they need to take less for their medical device instruments or drugs even though it may have taken them years and millions of dollars to arrive at the new drug or medical instrument ? Are you going to tell hospitals they can’t buy state of the art equipment to use in their hospitals? IMO too many people are getting hung up at “profits” and not looking at the total cost of health care.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:36:54 GMT
I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others. Even if you take out profits it still comes down the cost of providing the care. Are you going to tell those who work in the medical field they have to take less in salary and benefits? Are you going to tell those who push medical technology that they need to take less for their medical device instruments or drugs even though it may have taken them years and millions of dollars to arrive at the new drug or medical instrument ? Are you going to tell hospitals they can’t buy state of the art equipment to use in their hospitals? IMO too many people are getting hung up at “profits” and not looking at the total cost of health care. Let's start at the bloated billions in profits. See above. Or we can keep telling our fellow sick citizens to just fuck off. I guess that's a strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 8, 2018 23:42:05 GMT
Even if you take out profits it still comes down the cost of providing the care. Are you going to tell those who work in the medical field they have to take less in salary and benefits? Are you going to tell those who push medical technology that they need to take less for their medical device instruments or drugs even though it may have taken them years and millions of dollars to arrive at the new drug or medical instrument ? Are you going to tell hospitals they can’t buy state of the art equipment to use in their hospitals? IMO too many people are getting hung up at “profits” and not looking at the total cost of health care. Let's start at the bloated billions in profits. See above. Or we can keep telling our fellow sick citizens to just fuck off. I guess that's a strategy. Please - as if those are the only options. As if millions of Americans aren't being treated every single day. You have made your position clear before. You've stated unequivocal that you want to socialize all aspects of the health care industry. We'll never agree.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 23:47:23 GMT
Let's start at the bloated billions in profits. See above. Or we can keep telling our fellow sick citizens to just fuck off. I guess that's a strategy. Please - as if those are the only options. As if millions of Americans aren't being treated every single day. You have made your position clear before. You've stated unequivocal that you want to socialize all aspects of the health care industry. We'll never agree. Agreed. See, we did agree. And yes, my position is clear. Let's stop treating the sick who are also poor as EXPENDABLE so that Pfizer shareholders and thousands of other for-profit medical companies can clear their BILLIONS in post-tax incomes.
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,728
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Jun 9, 2018 0:33:11 GMT
The point of insurance is to spread the risk over the population. Not just insure sick people. Your friend should consider himself lucky that he never met his deductible. Having a health catastrophe is not the same as winning the lottery. Since my husband would be uninsurable without pre-existing condition coverage, are you saying he deserves that? I'm pretty sure that his 50 employees wouldn't appreciate him losing his business to bankruptcy. Healthcare for all is important to the entire community, not just sick people. I refuse to go back to the old days when families were bankrupted by having a sick baby who was classified with pre-existing conditions. So what makes your husband's entitlement to coverage more compelling than my friend's right to get coverage? I refuse to vote for anything that will allow Obamacare and it's provisions to stand So is your friend paying $867 per month or per year? Because both are a bargain if it isn't subsidized. I'm not sure why you think that's so high? It's a lot cheaper than pretty much any group plan we've had. So what's your plan? Chaos? What's the republican plan? Oh yeah, they still don't have one. This a problem for the entire US and needs to be dealt with. So you think that European universal plans aren't perfect? My Canadian, British, and French friends are thrilled with their programs. The only ones I hear complaining about them are Americans in order to justify the lack of their own. I consider health care a right, not an entitlement.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 15:31:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 0:47:22 GMT
Please - as if those are the only options. As if millions of Americans aren't being treated every single day. You have made your position clear before. You've stated unequivocal that you want to socialize all aspects of the health care industry. We'll never agree. Agreed. See, we did agree. And yes, my position is clear. Let's stop treating the sick who are also poor as EXPENDABLE so that Pfizer shareholders and thousands of other for-profit medical companies can clear their BILLIONS in post-tax incomes. This is the system we have. To all of a sudden push everyone to Medicare with out stepping back and figuring out to do it correctly will do nothing but cause chaos. Make the necesssry changes to the ACA and then figure out how to successfully make the switch to Medicare for all. A couple of things that need to be taken into condideration is if you can put the insurance companies are pushed out what happens to the people who work for the insurance companies as the majority only write health care insurance. Most will cease to exist. Bernie in his white sheet explaining how to make this work thought since the framework for the administrating Medicare was all ready in place it should be easy to include all Americans. Really? Off the top of my head I don’t know how many of us old folks are currently in Medicare but I know it’s no where near 320M. So how is the current system going to easily absorbe 100’s of millions more people? That’s just two things that need to be dealt with first.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 9, 2018 1:30:58 GMT
Agreed. See, we did agree. And yes, my position is clear. Let's stop treating the sick who are also poor as EXPENDABLE so that Pfizer shareholders and thousands of other for-profit medical companies can clear their BILLIONS in post-tax incomes. This is the system we have. To all of a sudden push everyone to Medicare with out stepping back and figuring out to do it correctly will do nothing but cause chaos. Make the necesssry changes to the ACA and then figure out how to successfully make the switch to Medicare for all. A couple of things that need to be taken into condideration is if you can put the insurance companies are pushed out what happens to the people who work for the insurance companies as the majority only write health care insurance. Most will cease to exist. Bernie in his white sheet explaining how to make this work thought since the framework for the administrating Medicare was all ready in place it should be easy to include all Americans. Really? Off the top of my head I don’t know how many of us old folks are currently in Medicare but I know it’s no where near 320M. So how is the current system going to easily absorbe 100’s of millions more people? That’s just two things that need to be dealt with first. I’m not an expert, but my thought is that insurance wouldn’t be completely free for people, even with universal healthcare. I think some people think the government would have to just “find” all that money to cover all expenses. But that isn’t the case. We would pay towards premiums in the form of higher taxes, right? But IMO, if done well, and health insurance is no longer for profit, we would be paying less than what most are now, but get better coverage.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 9, 2018 1:34:50 GMT
I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others. Even if you take out profits it still comes down the cost of providing the care. Are you going to tell those who work in the medical field they have to take less in salary and benefits? Are you going to tell those who push medical technology that they need to take less for their medical device instruments or drugs even though it may have taken them years and millions of dollars to arrive at the new drug or medical instrument ? Are you going to tell hospitals they can’t buy state of the art equipment to use in their hospitals? IMO too many people are getting hung up at “profits” and not looking at the total cost of health care. Insurance companies are already reducing the amount they will pay for services. I don’t know if it is just in MN, but BCBS and probably others have reduce the amount they will pay for outpatient therapy services by about 35%. That is in the last year, since trump took office.
|
|