# Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study



## Synthaholic (Aug 5, 2013)

*Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*

*Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*



Upgrading the nations Medicare program and expanding it to cover   people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in  efficiency savings  in its first year of operation, enough to pay for  high-quality, comprehensive health  benefits for all residents of the  United States at a lower cost to most individuals,  families and  businesses.


Thats the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald  Friedman, a  professor of economics at the University  of Massachusetts, Amherst.  There would even be money left over  to help pay down the national debt,  he said.


Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer   system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for  All  Act, H.R. 676,   introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45  other lawmakers,  would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That  would be more than enough to  cover all 44 million people the government  estimates will be uninsured in that  year and to upgrade benefits for  everyone else.


No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on  health care, Friedman said.


His findings were released this morning [Wednesday, July 31,  11 a.m.  EDT] at a congressional briefing in the Cannon House   Office Building   hosted by Public Citizen and Physicians for a National Health Program,  followed  by a 1 p.m. news conference with Rep. Conyers and others in  observance of  Medicares 48th anniversary at the House Triangle near  the Capitol steps. A  copy of Friedmans full report, with tables and  charts, is available here.


Friedman said the savings would come from slashing the   administrative waste associated with todays private health insurance  industry  ($476 billion) and using the new, public systems bargaining  muscle to negotiate  pharmaceutical drug prices down to European levels  ($116 billion).


These savings would be more than enough to fund $343  billion in  improvements to our health system, including the achievement of truly   universal coverage, improved benefits, and the elimination of premiums,  co-payments  and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking  care, he said.




*snip*


----------



## S.J. (Aug 5, 2013)

So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 5, 2013)

> Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study



Someday, sooner, we can all hope, rather than later, America will find the sanity and courage to implement a single payer system.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 5, 2013)

We will have single payer as soon as people decide they don't want any medical care at all.

Go back to witch doctors.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 5, 2013)

You found a study that agrees with you, classic confirmation bias.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You found a study that agrees with you, classic confirmation bias.


Reality has a strong Liberal bias.


----------



## lynn63 (Aug 5, 2013)

I agree that medicare should cover everyone as it would take the investors out of the picture and eliminate the health insurance companies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 5, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> 
> 
> Someday, sooner, we can all hope, rather than later, America will find the sanity and courage to implement a single payer system.



Yes, that would be the sane course, if we ignore the reality that every single country that has a single payer system is moving away form it because of the ballooning costs and substandard care.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 5, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You found a study that agrees with you, classic confirmation bias.
> ...



Only an idiot would say that.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 5, 2013)

So you want another unfunded failed social program?

Medicare can't cover the ones already in it, let alone more people being added.
Medicare Faces Unfunded Liability of $38.6T, or $328,404 for Each U.S. Household | CNS News

This is from last year, it has gone up since that report.
Where are each and every American household going to get 328,404.00 and this would become higher if we add millions of more people.
No one has that amount of money, which is why it is called unfunded mandates.

Why would you want Government to have anything to do with Health Care?
Each and every Government run Health Care System, causes rationed care, long waits for appointments, scarce diagnostic equipment and long waits for the procedure.

It's inhumane to have people in pain, to force them have to wait so long for anything to be done for them.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> We will have single payer as soon as people decide they don't want any medical care at all.
> 
> Go back to witch doctors.



That gets dumbest statement of the day award.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



Bullshit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You react this way because you know it's true.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 5, 2013)

I  have medicare.   I pay $100.00 a month for no care.  If I want medical care and to go see a doctor, I have to pay out of pocket just like I did when I had no insurance at all.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > &#8216;Medicare for All&#8217; would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



you can't get that through these peoples heads who wants the guberment to take care of them..

we see how they have run the post office, amtrake, etc etc...so lets give our health care over to them..they all have degrees in medicine and will be EXPERTS on making our health care decisions for us..

man this country is going to hell when they want elected idiots with no degrees or expertise in medicine deciding your health care... sad sad say goodby to FREEDOM


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > &#8216;Medicare for All&#8217; would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



Link?
I can see why countries around the world want to go the private insurance route.
Then they can do this (Chart 1) and they can also be equal with the US as far as the cost of healthcare per capita (Chart 2).
Hey, does anyone have any solid proof that the US has the best healthcare in the world?
I personally do not think Obamacare is the answer, mandating heathcare coverage isn't freedom.  I do lean towards Single Payer as I have yet to see a solid and intelligent argument against it. All I ever seen is pro-let's keep it like it is talking points.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 5, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Yes, I know what I said is true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 5, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Look it up, this isn't the first time some idiot posted tripe like this.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 6, 2013)

S.J. said:


> So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?



Becaue they already HAD health care?  

This is what you guys don't get. For those who have health care already, ObamaCare doesn't change anything, really. Oh, there's a few things your insurance company isn't allowed to do anymore, like call your cancer a pre-existing condition if you had acne.  

But for most of us, the 100 million already covered by a government program or the 150 million covered by private insurance, things didn't really change.  

it was the 50 million not covered that were the issue that is being addressed. 

Incidently, the biggest problem Obama did was negotiating with himself.  He gave up on a single payer system, on a public option, and even on a Medicare buy-in in order to try to get a few Republicans to buy into the ACA if it looked more like RomneyCare.  

But even Romney wouldn't buy into that.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Instead of calling me names. why don't you dispute my charts derived from reputable resources?
Name calling,,, you really disappoint me, particularly when I've seen posts by you whining about being called names.  Myself, I like to avoid such childish behavior.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 6, 2013)

Medicare?

Sounds like socialism to me


----------



## Claudette (Aug 6, 2013)

If folks could only take out exactly what they put into Medicare the program would have been long gone.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 6, 2013)

It is evident that no one can refute the OP.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?
> ...


Millions will LOSE their existing coverage because of the cost of Obamacare.  If you're rich, or you're an elected official who can make the taxpayer pay for your insurance, then I guess you can afford to keep what you have.  If your employer currently provides it, and can't afford the additional cost, then you're likely to become an uninsured part-time employee instead of full-time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?
> ...



Nope, they exempted themselves because they are better than you are. The simple proof of that is that, even if you already have health care, and don't work for the government, you are still subject to Obamacare.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



I didn't call you anything. I called the OP an idiot, the only reason you would take offense at that is if you are the OP.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 6, 2013)

S.J. said:


> [qu
> Millions will LOSE their existing coverage because of the cost of Obamacare.  If you're rich, or you're an elected official who can make the taxpayer pay for your insurance, then I guess you can afford to keep what you have.  If your employer currently provides it, and can't afford the additional cost, then you're likely to become an uninsured part-time employee instead of full-time.



Yeah, well, employers are going to find that won't fly for more than a few months when employees start bailing for jobs that DO offer health care.  

And frankly, if you aren't going to support a single payer system, then I realy don't want to hear the employers whinge about the expense of the current system.  

Frankly, they are the ones who should be INSISTING on single payer.  It would actually help the small businessman.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> [
> 
> Nope, they exempted themselves because they are better than you are. The simple proof of that is that, even if you already have health care, and don't work for the government, you are still subject to Obamacare.



Guy, you'll still be able to get your medications under Obamacare, don't worry.  

The government already does a fine job of providing health care to their employees.  They aren't the problem. 

It's the employer who has shitty insurance or no insurance sponging off the rest of us.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



To clarify to whom you were referring to better, you should have used the OP quote instead. of my quote


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 6, 2013)

The right is all too anxious to believe the propaganda coming from the private insurance industry, telling of the horrors of single payer, or Medicare for all. The right wants to privatize everything.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 6, 2013)

Medicare doesn't provide care.   I don't know what Medicare does.   It takes $100.00 a month to give me a service that I used to pay $30.00 a month for.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Medicare doesn't provide care.   I don't know what Medicare does.   It takes $100.00 a month to give me a service that I used to pay $30.00 a month for.


$100. is pretty good. How long ago did you pay $30.?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You have nothing, so you insult.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



First, that isn't your quote.

Second, they think they are better than everyone, not just the OP.


----------



## lynn63 (Aug 6, 2013)

We need a single payer system to get employers off the hook of having to provide it.  Employers not only have to provide it but also are inclined to only hire young healthy people verses older people with more experience.  If employers no longer have to worry about their employees getting sick that would create their premiums to rise, it becomes a better working environment.

Do you want your employer watching what you eat for lunch to determine your state of health?  Do we need more discrimination than there already is in the workplace?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



Link?

Oh, never mind. Its not true and you probably already know it.


----------



## BorisTheAnimal (Aug 6, 2013)

See, here's another inherent flaw of Liberalism.  Liberalism means that more people depend on big daddy government to wipe their asses because Liberals don't trust people at all to make up their own minds.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Medicare doesn't provide care.   I don't know what Medicare does.   It takes $100.00 a month to give me a service that I used to pay $30.00 a month for.



Gosh. Why kind of fool pays $100 a month and doesn't know why? Did you know what you were paying $30 a month for?

Why don't you find out what you're paying for instead of coming here to bitch and lie about something you now say you are utterly ignorant of?

Its actually pretty easy and you will be glad you EDUCATED YOURSELF.

Actually, katzen, you will still be just as miserable and vile as you are now. But, you DO have a choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Name your favorite single payer country that isn't facing budget problems.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 6, 2013)

> Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study


This is what I and my Progressive friends wanted but Obama is a moderate so he didn't insist upon it.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 6, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> 
> *Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*
> 
> ...





*using the new, public systems bargaining  muscle to negotiate   pharmaceutical drug prices down to European levels  ($116 billion)*

Use my tax dollars to mirror Europe?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> 
> 
> This is what I and my Progressive friends wanted but Obama is a moderate so he didn't insist upon it.



Every time you post you get dumber.

Obama didn't insist on single payer because he is a useless pile of meat that can't get anything he wants, so he always pretends that what he gets is what he wanted. The reason you didn't get single payer is that everyone in the universe understands why it is a bad idea.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Every time you post you get dumber.
> 
> Obama didn't insist on single payer because he is a useless pile of meat that can't get anything he wants, so he always pretends that what he gets is what he wanted. The reason you didn't get single payer is that everyone in the universe understands why it is a bad idea.


It's only a bad idea to the for-profit healthcare industry.

It's a good idea to average American's.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Medicare doesn't provide care.   I don't know what Medicare does.   It takes $100.00 a month to give me a service that I used to pay $30.00 a month for.



Medicare is like insurance.  You have a deductibles and co-insurance.  Medicare is there for when you really get sick and the bills get really big.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



Single payer with an option to purchase private supplemental insurance is a great idea.  Eventually, this is what we will have.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > [qu
> ...


There won't be any jobs that offer health care.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you post you get dumber.
> ...



Tell that to the Brits, even the poor people there go to France.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



A better idea would be to stop the ridiculous way the government pays doctors for health care.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, I just don't waste time on crazy people who insist something is so when it isn't.  

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare.  Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!"  And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You keep telling yourself that.  

Frankly, the sooner we get employers out of the health care business and go to single payer, the better, as far as I'm concerned.  

But employers know that as long as they can hold your family's well-being over your head, they can get a little more out of you. So even though they HATE providing insurance, they don't want a world where you get it from the government.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tell that to the Brits, even the poor people there go to France.


Well they sure ain't gonna come here where they would pay 10 times as much for 1/2 the service and treatment.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 7, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> The right is all too anxious to believe the propaganda coming from the private insurance industry, telling of the horrors of single payer, or Medicare for all. The right wants to privatize everything.



bs, believing propaganda is your liberals baby...I judged my opinion of it on reading about Englands socialist health care...some HORRIBLE STUFF...but you and people like don't care as long as other people will coving your health care, even forcing the YOUTH to cover you all's ass...so much for that FREEDOM OF CHOICE we hear you screeching on abortion, you sit here not a blink and AGREE WITH FORCING Obamacare on the American people and another FREEDOM taken away
pathetic

but by golly don't suggest a women has a ultrasound before her abortion...that is enough for you libs to melt completely down


----------



## lynn63 (Aug 7, 2013)

The entire system of healthcare needs to be restructured if the citizens have a chance in hell of ever seeing healthcare cost go down.  The system is corrupt and monopolized in many states that have one or two dominate hospital systems and one or two dominate health insurance carriers that insure most of their population.   In this situation, competition is stifled and these two entities can do what they want.

BC/BS also known as Wellpoint, Anthem insures most of the population in Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming.  BC/BS also dominates in the Federal Employee Health plan as it covers 2/3 of its 8 million population.

United Healthcare is another dominate player in the market as it insures over 80 million people with the majority of them contracted for states Medicaid and Medicare population.

Neither BC/BS or United Healthcare or hospital monopolies want cost to decrease.  Any decrease in the new exchanges will most likely be temporary until they get as many people signed up for it.

As much as I would like to see a single payer system, the government cannot be trusted to run it free of corruption without stepping on the corporations that they depend on for funding contributions.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 7, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Tell that to the Brits, even the poor people there go to France.
> ...



Actually, there are some areas in which we have better medicine. You just gotta be rich to avail yourself of it. 

But, its thanks to reagan's socialist EMTALA that hospitals can't afford to keep trauma and burn centers open. 

Slacker rw's are just going to have to start paying their way.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



Please post a link showing which countries with single payer systems are moving away to another system and what system will they adopt.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare.  Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!"  And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.


That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I insist something is true that isn't? 

By saying "No real significant changes," you are both expressing an opinion that other people might find ridiculous, and admitting that your plan changed, thus proving yourself a liar without any effort on my part.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> 
> *Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*
> 
> ...


I have no doubt that a single payer system would save money.  However, it's not in the cards, at least not in the foreseeable future.  The Democrats aren't about to replace the healthcare law and Republicans want to repeal it and turn the clock back to 2008.  

The passage of the healthcare law has made the insurance companies and even larger part of our healthcare system.  Since the passage of a single payer system would destroy private health insurance, the insurance companies would fight single payer all the way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Already have, more than once, and you ignored it. Is there some reason I should expect this time to be any different?


----------



## boedicca (Aug 7, 2013)

Given all the waivers granted to folks who want to avoid ObamaCare (including Congress), it's highly unlikely we could ever achieve Medicare for All.

The outcome will be a two tiered system of special health care for the political elite and their cronies, with chronic shortages and rationing for those of us who pay for the entire system.

No thank you; I'll pass.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 7, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Given all the waivers granted to folks who want to avoid ObamaCare (including Congress), it's highly unlikely we could ever achieve Medicare for All.
> 
> The outcome will be a two tiered system of special health care for the political elite and their cronies, with chronic shortages and rationing for those of us who pay for the entire system.
> 
> No thank you; I'll pass.


Tagging what the administration has done in regard to congress's healthcare coverage as an exemption to the ACA is interesting but hardly accurate.  Far from exempting Congress from the ACA requirements, as some have reported, members and congressional staff of over 24,000, are subject to the additional legal requirements that will apply to no other Americans.  They must purchase insurance from the exchanges.

The problem is the law does not allow congressman and staff to continue participation in the federal employee group health plan because it can not be offered on the exchange at this time because their employer, the US government has more that 100 employees.

The government is resolving the problem by subsidizing congressmen and staff in the amount of 72% of average cost of their current group plan, Federal Employee Health Insurance Program.  The subsidy must  be used to purchase health insurance on the exchanges.  The subsidy will continue until 2017 when the Federal Employee Health Program can be made available on the exchange or the law amended to allow congress and staff to participate in the federal group health insurance program like other federal employees.

In regard to waivers, Obama has stated more than once that his administration would issue waivers to help employers and insurers meet the requirements of the law. 


Implementing Health Reform: A Proposed Rule On Congressional Exchange Participation ? Health Affairs Blog


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare.  Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!"  And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.
> ...



Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years. 

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion.  (And seriously, fuck those guys.)   Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2013)

Flopper said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Given all the waivers granted to folks who want to avoid ObamaCare (including Congress), it's highly unlikely we could ever achieve Medicare for All.
> ...



But they don't have to pay for it, we do. The only way you can argue that that doesn't exempt them from Obamacare is if you are a lying fuckwad.

Are you a lying fuckwad?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Why do you lie about it if Obamacare is so great?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Because he suffers from "Chris Matthews Syndrome".


----------



## Flopper (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


There are very few changes in the ACA that effect employee group health insurance policies that have not already been made.  The two major changes, preexisting conditions and lifetime maximums have already been eliminated from most all employee sponsored health plans.  The major impact is on individual and family plans purchased on the exchanges.  This effects less than 20% of the people.

The 1 yr delay of employer mandate is to allow the IRS to clarify rules concerning part time work and to give employers that are eligible to unitize the exchanges time to evaluate their use for their group health insurance.  Basically, this is employers with 50 to 100 employees, about 5% of the employers.

For most group plans, the coverage and premium will be same with or without the mandate because the benefits are the same.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I don't think ObamaCare is that great.  

I think Obamacare is a big,wet sloppy kiss to big insurance. 

But it's better than what we were doing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How is more of what we were doing better if what we were doing is so awful? Does it being a big, wet, sloppy kiss to big insurance justify you lying about what Obama did?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Guy, take your pills, and try to pay attention. 

The fact that people who weren't covered are now covered and are not going to be using the Emergency Room as their doctor's office is an improvement.  

The fact that insurance companies can't set "lifetime limits' or disqualify people for "Pre-existing conditions" is a good thing.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 11, 2016)

Summary: H.R. 676, The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act | Physicians for a National Health Program
^ see above ^

Instead of the part at the end, where funding for universal care would come from "increasing taxes on certain classes"
I would propose that each State work out plans to reform their prisons and mental health systems, where the amount of coverage is inversely proportional.

The greater the reduction in crime rates, incarceration, and prison spending, and the more cost-effective mental health programs that are implemented to save 
tax dollars (as well as lives, incomes from working families, and other resources affected)
the people of each State would be rewarded with greater savings in resources to cover more health care for the population.

Both politicians and public should be rewarded for reducing crime and costs related.

By tying health care coverage to that, this would provide unified motivation to reduce the incidence and cost of crime
so that the same resources already being paid and spent can be redirected toward health care for all,
instead of increasing taxes to pay for that on top of the billions already being spent on crime and incarceration.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 11, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Summary: H.R. 676, The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act | Physicians for a National Health Program
> ^ see above ^
> 
> Instead of the part at the end, where funding for universal care would come from "increasing taxes on certain classes"
> ...


Making healthcare coverage inversely proportional to crime/mental health problems doesn't make much sense.   There is plenty of incentives now to rid our communities of crime and mental illness..  The problem is the cost of dealing with it is really high and many of the past programs haven't produced the expected results.  This makes it really hard to get taxpayers to cough up more money to throw down the rabbit hole.
. .


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 11, 2016)

What needs to be done is more health education to people and let them cure their own ills..


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 11, 2016)

I was an executive in health insurance companies and HMO's for my entire career, but I have never had health insurance myself, that was as good as Medicare, except for the donut hole in prescriptions. That would go away instantly if Big Pharm. had not successfully lobbied for, and got, a law passed forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 11, 2016)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Neither party is going to do anything with healthcare for several reasons.  Healthcare is not as important an issue with voters as it was 4 or 8 years ago.  Secondly, neither party has any confidence in their ability to pass legislation that would lower cost while increasing or maintaining coverage and quality of care.

The major change that people want in our healthcare system is lower out of pocket costs.  Democrats can't delivery that because they don't have and are not lightly to have enough votes in the House to pass legislation to spend more money on healthcare.  Republicans pin their hopes of reducing cost on more completion among insurance companies.  The only way that can happen is for federal legislation to stomp all over state regulations and that's not going to happen.  Even if there were legislation to encourage more completion between insurance companies, it won't touch the real elephant in the closet, the large increase in medical cost of providing more coverage to really sick people.


Most Important Problem


----------



## Flopper (Apr 11, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> I was an executive in health insurance companies and HMO's for my entire career, but I have never had health insurance myself, that was as good as Medicare, except for the donut hole in prescriptions. That would go away instantly if Big Pharm. had not successfully lobbied for, and got, a law passed forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices.


I have Medicare with a supplement and have had it for some years.  It's the best insurance I have ever had.  I have not paid a healthcare bill in years.  I have far better coverage than with any private insurance.  I can live in where in the US without having to change insurance.  I don't have to be concerned about an employer dropping insurance coverage or changing companies.  The only problem is the screwy drug converge.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 11, 2016)

I have Medicare.  Good luck finding a doctor that accepts it.  Most won't.   I do have a medical provider.  It's a physician's assistant with a rotating doctor.  Most visits are conducted over the phone.  Medicare does provide for a yearly wellness visit where I have to listen to a 45 minute end of life counseling lecture.  I love messing with the PA.  I tell her I want everything.  All artificial measures.

For real medical care, I still have to pay for that myself.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Flopper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Gee....the problems of Obamacare defined.

I am still not sure how we spend 8,500 per person per year on health care.

A family of 6 would spend 43,000 per year.  I know lots of families of 6 who don't spend anything.

Where the hell is it all going ?


----------



## Flopper (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


What's going on is 5% of the patients are responsible for 50% of the healthcare cost.  If you think $8,500 is a lot for healthcare, you apparently haven't dealt with really big medical bills.
My cousin became very ill and was transported to a trauma center.  He spent 21 days in ICU and had 4 operations.  He had 15 doctors.  The total cost of his medical bills were $470,000.  He was responsible for only $5,000, his yearly out of pocket maximum.  Insurance paid the remainder.

In a family of 6, just one serious disease requiring hospitalization is likely to cost over $43,000.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Thank you for stating the obvious.

Your cousin sucked up 10 families worth.  How frequent is your cousin ?

There isn't a 1 in 10 ratio as near as I can tell.

And yes, I think 8,500 is a lot of healthcare and I have had some major surgeries.

If I had saved that amount over the years, I'd still be ahead if I had paid the entire thing.

I realize that is what insurance is for.  

My point being that nothing is going to bring down the cost of insurance as long as we are paying that much per person.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


What you seem to be neglecting is that someday you or a member of your family is likely to have huge medical costs that far exceed your yearly premiums. $8,500 is nothing compared to what you will pay for a couple weeks in the hospital or on going care for chronic illnesses such as cancer or heart disease. My wife's medical bills for last year topped a $150,000.  4 days for a bout with pneumonia was $34,000   When you start having serious healthcare expenses come back and tell me $8500 a year is a lot of healthcare and I will say BULL SHIT.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You missed where I said I had several major surgeries ?

Or does that upset your little fairy tale.

I've put in on a spreadsheet...and like I said, I come out ahead.

If I put my kids on that same sheet, I make out like a bandit.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 12, 2016)

...and I know a woman whose final bill arrived recently for her kidney transplant.

$836,000.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 12, 2016)

The article doesn't address the fact that our Medicare system is a public/private partnership, Medicare/Medicare Supplements/Medicare Advantage.  Do they want Medicare (as it now exists) for all, or do they want pure Single Payer?  They're not the same thing.

And why tax employers?  Increase the current Medicare tax, and get this monkey off the back of our employers.

Medicare (as it currently exists) for all? Absolutely.  Single Payer?  No thanks.
.


----------



## dblack (Apr 12, 2016)

Corporatism über alles!


----------



## Manonthestreet (Apr 12, 2016)

Arent medicare patients having trouble finding DR's   great plan.....


----------



## Slyhunter (Apr 12, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> 
> 
> 
> Someday, sooner, we can all hope, rather than later, America will find the sanity and courage to implement a single payer system.


Elect Trump and it'll happen sooner than you think.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 12, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


The average cost of one day in the hospital in my state is $3,273/day.  In ICU, the sky is the limit.  These costs don't include diagnostic tests, fees for doctors, emergency room admission, drugs, IV's surgical costs, Last year, I had gallbladder surgery.  The cost of the surgery was  $17,300 plus the hospital cost which was about $18,000 for 4 days.  The total was about $35,000.   

Affordable Care Act Education Center - REALTORS® Insurance


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> ...and I know a woman whose final bill arrived recently for her kidney transplant.
> 
> $836,000.



Hard to imagine a million dollars for even that.

But, we suck it up.

That takes a lot of money.......

These are special instances.

I won't go into everything I think should be involved here.

But there is an extreme in everything.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 12, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ...and I know a woman whose final bill arrived recently for her kidney transplant.
> ...



That figure is not extreme. My wife's first husband was diagnosed with leukemia when he was only 52 years old. He fought it for 14 months before he died. The hospital bill ALONE was $1,175,000.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Apr 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> I was an executive in health insurance companies and HMO's for my entire career, but I have never had health insurance myself, that was as good as Medicare, except for the donut hole in prescriptions. That would go away instantly if Big Pharm. had not successfully lobbied for, and got, a law passed forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices.


Due to Obamacare that is no longer the case.  Good doctors are refusing medicare these days.  What good is it if you cannot find a doctor who is competent?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I have to say I have never heard of a hospital bill that comes even close to what you describe.

I would say it is pretty extreme and on the far end of any distribution regarding costs.

I don't dispute that it happened.

I still say it is pretty uncommon.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 12, 2016)

Jeremiah said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I was an executive in health insurance companies and HMO's for my entire career, but I have never had health insurance myself, that was as good as Medicare, except for the donut hole in prescriptions. That would go away instantly if Big Pharm. had not successfully lobbied for, and got, a law passed forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices.
> ...



Urban myth. I live in a retirement community of 31,000 people, all of whom are at least 55 years old, and an average age of 74. I can see my doctor within 5 working days. In addition, I have had no problem with getting in to a pain clinic, orthopedic specialist, podiatrist, Hospital, urgent care, as well as a surgeon for rotator cuff injury, x-rays, MRI, and gastrointestinal specialist.  Everybody I know is over 65, and on Medicare, and every single one of them has all the medical support that they need. In fact, when one lives in a retirement community, the two main topics of conversation are grandchildren and medical issues. Nobody complains about not getting to see a doctor.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 12, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Sun, in my career, I was the VP of underwriting for insurance companies and HMO's. it was my job to make sure that employers with employees with ongoing catastrophic claims were NOT insured by my company. The starting price for the simplest kidney transplant is almost $200,000. A baby born with a hole in it's heart is around $75,000, if they only have to operate once. Don't even ask how much cancer costs. You can not afford it. About the cheapest thing that can be done for your heart is bypass surgery. That runs from $80,000 to $100,000. if you want to see something serious, a heart/lung transplant starts at $750,000, and would probably average out at $1,250,000. I have personally seen claims at $5,000,000. One that I particularly remember is a guy with 3rd degree burns on 45% of his body. He remained hospitalized for almost 3 years. From my perspective, I was extremely glad that it happened in an auto crash, because that made his auto insurance primary, instead of us.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


My brother's brain cancer was about $250,000.  It would have been a lot more but he threw in towel and asked for Hospice.

So many people have no idea of just how costly fighting a serious disease can be.  They see a $5,000 out of pocket deductible as ridiculous.

I had a discussion with my son a few months ago about his insurance.  I guess because he's only 25, he seems to think he's going to go through life healthy as a horse and get taking out by semi when he's 60.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 12, 2016)

My brother's uncomplicated prostrate removal was over $25,000, and he only spent 2 days in the hospital.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Apr 13, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


While I agree that is the way it used to be - it isn't that way now, Vandalshandle.  You need to find out why many doctors are no longer accepting medicare. It's a nationwide problem these days.  Again - what good is it if you cannot find a competent doctor that accepts medicare anymore?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 13, 2016)

Jeremiah said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...



I was being kind to call that an urban myth. It is actually Conservative propaganda that has been pulled out of thin air in an effort to discredit ACA and Medicare. In other words, it is pure bull shit, made up by people who aren't even insured under Medicare. Having had 50 years of health Insurance executive experience, and having been covered by Medicare for 6 years, I know RW bull shit about health insurance and provider contracts when I hear it. In fact, federal law does not even permit an insurance company to sell Medicare Advantage plans in any zip code which is not fully covered by contracted providers. If what you were saying is true, every Medicare Advantage plan that is not fully staffed by providers within 50 miles of a covered person's address, would have to be shut down...by law. In my zip code, which is  a semi-rural area, there are three Medicare Advantage plans being sold by three HMO's. Caremore, Humana and United Health.


----------



## dblack (Apr 13, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



For those of you advocating single payer, I'm wondering how you would expect government to deal with unionized doctors, and the inevitable strikes that would result.


----------



## Slyhunter (Apr 13, 2016)

dblack said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...


Should be a law outlawing state and federal employees from unionizing.
Problem solved.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 13, 2016)

Synthaholic said:


> *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> 
> *Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*
> 
> ...



And put the quality of care into the shitter

Tell me do you want the people responsible for the VA in charge of your health care

I sure as fuck don't


----------



## dblack (Apr 13, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Yep.


----------



## dblack (Apr 13, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



But they wouldn't _technically_ be federal employees. That's the net result of single payer, but ...


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 13, 2016)

Synthaholic said:


> *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> 
> *Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*
> 
> ...



Please direct whoever wrote that study to the VA.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 13, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Oh come on.  I have Medicare and don't have a real doctor at all.  It's an office staffed with an idiot physician's assistant and a rotating doctor that shows up once in a while.   I got sick and the closest I got to the doctor was a diagnostic phone call.   I needed a dermatologist, she looked at me and said sorry we can't help you.  I would have better medical care from a witch doctor shaking chicken bones.  Whatever honest medical care I get, I have to pay for, just like I always did.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 13, 2016)

Oh, what they are good at, scheduled to the minute is the yearly end of life counseling.  They have about a dozen different authorizations to die.  I get a lot of enjoyment refusing to sign all but the one that says I want all measures, everything.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 13, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...



You expect that your family physician should have a dermatologist on staff?

Well, gee wiz. Aren't you the victim! 

If I had your zip code, I could find you a dermatologist within 15 minutes who treats Medicare patients without leaving my chair or this computer.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 13, 2016)

S.J. said:


> So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?



Non sequitur ^^^, a statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 13, 2016)

Katzndogz said:


> We will have single payer as soon as people decide they don't want any medical care at all.
> 
> Go back to witch doctors.



Idiot-Gram ^^^


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 13, 2016)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> ...



Please name the countries "moving away from it" and what they are doing to replace it.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 13, 2016)

And forcibly nationalizing all makers of prescription drugs would save trillions more, especially since there soon would be no drugs.  That's why we MUST elect Nutty Old Uncle Bernie!


----------



## Flopper (Apr 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> ...


The VA is both a medical provider and an insurer.  That's a lot different not than Medicare and private medical providers.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 13, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...


95.3% of all medical doctors accept Medicare and 83.7% are accepting new Medicare patients,  Almost all general hospitals accept Medicare.  The primary reason doctors don't accept Medicare is they provide services such as cosmetic surgery that Medicare does not cover.

If you can't find a good doctor that accepts Medicare, you are either not looking or you live in a remote area where there are few doctors.

Most doctors and hospitals can't afford not to accept Medicare because it's the largest payer of Medical services in the country and covers 48 million American, who generate nearly half of our healthcare expenses.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 14, 2016)

Ya gotta love doctors who evaded all courses in basic economics.  They firmly believe that, though they lose money on every Medicare patient, they make it up on the volume.  

If they ever catch on look for a government ban on medical students enrolling in any course in economics, ever.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


So is Kaiser.


----------



## dblack (Apr 14, 2016)

I'm just wondering if it's clear to everyone, doctors and patients alike, that the goal here is to change doctors from professional service providers into employees of the state.


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> I'm just wondering if it's clear to everyone, doctors and patients alike, that the goal here is to change doctors from professional service providers into employees of the state.



Only to someone who doesn't understand how the current iteration of Medicare actually works.


----------



## dblack (Apr 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering if it's clear to everyone, doctors and patients alike, that the goal here is to change doctors from professional service providers into employees of the state.
> ...



Wake up and smell the coffee. The oft cited advantage of single-payer is that government would be able to leverage its position as "the only game in town" to negotiate lower prices with health care providers. Are you denying that?


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's not "making doctors employees of the state."  Stop waffling.


----------



## dblack (Apr 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 
Stop dodging. The primary 'selling point' of single payer is that the government will be able to dictate prices - because they are the only source of health care financing by design. Are you denying that? Or waffling?


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Explain what you mean by "making doctors employees of the state."


----------



## dblack (Apr 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



The whole point of single payer is to turn the tables. Traditionally, doctors have operated as services providers. This leaves them free to set their prices as they see fit. Some customers will be willing to pay their prices, some won't. Single payer seeks to reduce the number of 'customers' to one. A 'service provider' who works for only one customer is an employee.

The key is that it changes the power dynamic. When combined with the fact that there are no other 'employers', and that this is dictated by law, this gives government the power to set prices, to simply state how much it will pay for given drugs or services. Doctors can either choose to accept it, or quit - or go on strike, etc...


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There now, was that so hard?  Nevertheless, for one thing, you've got the terminology wrong.  Doctors would not be "employees," but "independent contractors."

Can you name any of the healthcare systems in the rest of the industrialized world where this is the case - i.e., doctors have no freedom in setting prices for private insurance (e.g., the UK) over and above the standard healthcare?  I'm not familiar with any.

Also, who's more important, the doctor or the patient?  You made an impassioned - if not entirely accurate - plea for the medical community, but I don't see anything about patients.

The consensus is, everybody hates the insurer, but one usually hears "doctors are greedy, doctors get paid too much, blah-blah-blah."  You seem to be pleading the opposite.  Interesting.


----------



## dblack (Apr 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



???


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


----------



## dblack (Apr 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Are you drunk? In the middle of the day??


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You're the one who failed to understand my post.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 15, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> Ya gotta love doctors who evaded all courses in basic economics.  They firmly believe that, though they lose money on every Medicare patient, they make it up on the volume.
> 
> If they ever catch on look for a government ban on medical students enrolling in any course in economics, ever.


The notion that doctors lose money on their treatment of Medicare patients arises frequently mostly from highly paid specialty physicians.  Is their any validity to this. Let's look just office visits.

It’s possible to perform some simple calculations to check the veracity of this claim. Assume that a doctor sees 16 patients a day for half an hour each, for 8 hours of patient time per day. With two hours of overtime work that makes for a 10 hour day, or 50 hours per week. That’s busy, but not an uncommon workweek for many professionals in the US. If the physician works 48 weeks per year, 5 days a week, that’s a potential 3840 patient visits a year. Assuming a 10% vacancy rate in appointments, whether due to cancellations, additional vacation, or otherwise, this leaves 3456 appointments per year.

Medicare reimburses office visits at around $85 per visit, though precise reimbursements vary by region. At $85 per visit, a primary care physician seeing nothing but Medicare patients could expect to receive $293,760 in annual reimbursements. Subtracting out the physician’s annual overhead provides an estimate of the physician’s salary. According to this physicians’ overhead spreadsheet, 50% is a good target for a primary care physician’s overhead. Overhead cannot fall below 100-150k for most physicians, as many expenses are fixed. This would leave our example physician with net income of roughly $147,000 annually.  For specialist performance surgeries and other in hospital procedures, income can be much higher.

Do Doctors Really Lose Money on Medicare?


----------



## Flopper (Apr 15, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Nope, not the same thing.  With Medicare all healthcare is delivered by private healthcare providers of the patients choosing.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 15, 2016)

Friend of mine in England needed to go to the hospital last night.

Wasted trip.

The doctors were on strike.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 15, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Until no doctors will accept it and then the government will be forced to either drop it or take it over a la the VA


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Until no doctors will accept it...



Why do you imagine they'd do that?


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 15, 2016)

Synthaholic said:


> *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> 
> *Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*



Kind of a zombie thread, but Friedman is the one crunching numbers for Bernie Sanders these days (at least unofficially) so it's relevant. These kinds of instant savings projections just aren't realistic. For lots of reasons, not least of which is that slicing hundreds of billions out of health care overnight *would be a bad thing*.

There is a lot of administrative spending in health care--on the provider side and on the insurer side--no doubt. Let's just assume Friedman's numbers as to the amount of administrative spending that gets eliminated by dissolving the multipayer system are right:



> Friedman said the savings would come from slashing the   administrative waste associated with todays private health insurance  industry  ($476 billion) and using the new, public systems bargaining  muscle to negotiate  pharmaceutical drug prices down to European levels  ($116 billion).



That "administrative waste" largely consists of FTEs: people who work for insurers, people who work in hospital finance or revenue cycle departments; in physician offices, etc. A general rule of thumb for a hospital is that 2/3 of its costs are labor; I would imagine that proportion is higher when looking only at the administrative side of the house and not clinical operations. Ballpark, we could be talking in the neighborhood of 4 million FTEs.

You can't lay 4 million people off (sorry, "slash administrative waste") overnight. That's almost halfway to the Great Recession.

I know everyone hates incrementalism and slow progress, but there's a reason you can't do this too quickly, there's a reason people talk about bending the cost curve (i.e., slowing future cost growth) and not trying to reset prices or "slash" hundreds of billions out of the health sector immediately. And that reason is simple: that sector employs a lot of people, anchors the local economy in many places, and does very important work.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 15, 2016)

Greenbeard said:


> That "administrative waste" largely consists of FTEs: people who work for insurers, people who work in hospital finance or revenue cycle departments; in physician offices, etc. A general rule of thumb for a hospital is that 2/3 of its costs are labor; I would imagine that proportion is higher when looking only at the administrative side of the house and not clinical operations. Ballpark, we could be talking in the neighborhood of 4 million FTEs.
> 
> You can't lay 4 million people off (sorry, "slash administrative waste") overnight. That's almost halfway to the Great Recession.
> 
> I know everyone hates incrementalism and slow progress, but there's a reason you can't do this too quickly, there's a reason people talk about bending the cost curve (i.e., slowing future cost growth) and not trying to reset prices or "slash" hundreds of billions out of the health sector immediately. And that reason is simple: that sector employs a lot of people, anchors the local economy in many places, and does very important work.



4 Million FTE's.

Our country employes roughly 150 million people.

You are saying we have 4 million "extras" in health care ?

That is roughly 2.7% of the total work force.

I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 16, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> 4 Million FTE's.
> 
> Our country employes roughly 150 million people.
> 
> ...



That's using Friedman's administrative savings numbers ($476B), which are almost certainly heavily inflated. Actual savings and job losses would probably be closer to half that.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 16, 2016)

Incremental steps? Fine, just git 'r done


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 16, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> Incremental steps? Fine, just git 'r done



Get what done ?


----------



## Flopper (Apr 17, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


There is no national shortage of doctors accepting Medicare as of 2015.  95.3% of all doctors accept Medicare patients, 83.7% are accepting new patients, and nearly 100% of all general hospitals accept Medicare.   
Since 2000, the number of doctors accepting Medicare has increased by 1.2%.  There are no large private insurance networks that provide as large a choice of doctors as Medicare does.

Most doctors that do not accept Medicare are those that that provide limited or no coverage for the procedures they perform such as cosmetic surgeons, and Psychiatrists. 

Medicare Patients’ Access to Physicians: A Synthesis of the Evidence
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db195.pdf


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 17, 2016)

S.J. said:


> So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?



Some people have been voting against their own best interests for their whole lives.  They are willfully ignorant fools.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 17, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



But when the pay outs get lower and thy will more will not accept it
Or it will lead to less people becoming Doctors because the income won't be there anymore


----------



## WheelieAddict (Apr 17, 2016)

Government provided health care would make it easier for businesses, especially small businesses. A large pool of healthy employees to hire and no expenses to provide care for employees. As long as tax on employers is reasonable and capped this would be a win win. There would be a loss in the bloated insurance industry though.


----------



## S.J. (Apr 17, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > So why did everyone who was instrumental in passing Obamacare exempt themselves from it?
> ...


You're really trying to say they were ignorant for exempting themselves?  They were smart enough to create this great system but too dumb to use it themselves?  You must be joking.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 17, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> But when the pay outs get lower and thy will more will not accept it
> Or it will lead to less people becoming Doctors because the income won't be there anymore



Or maybe we'll get people becoming Doctors because they want to help people, instead of buying a big boat and a mansion.  

What a concept!!!


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 17, 2016)

S.J. said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



More than 12,000 congressional staffers have enrolled in health plans through Obamacare


> Starting this year, new rules require federal lawmakers and their staffers to enroll in health-care plans through the small-business exchange on the city’s new insurance marketplace, known as DC Health Link. So far, 12,359 representatives and staff members, including those who work in district offices across the country and those working on Capitol Hill, have purchased plans, according to numbers obtained by The Washington Post from city health officials.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 17, 2016)

I wonder how many people actually know how Medicare works.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 17, 2016)

S.J. said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



UUHHHhhh... Ya sort of.  No I'm not joking.  I've watched the political representatives emerge in certain states from afar for many decades and I am amazed with the bamboozlement that goes on.

The death grip that the pharms and the health care advocates have on their "share" of medical coverages has been challenged for good reason.  The costs these so called providers have unleashed on the public over the last couple of decades have been obscene.  This should not be a nationally driven political policy issue at all.  It should be a pocket book issue.  The problem is that citizens united has ganged up on good sense to the benefit of the stock holders again and rejected the needs of the common man an woman.  

Contrary to the bullshit promoted to ensure the survival of the least effective and highest cost health care in certain areas the actual on the ground systems implemented by "Obamacare" are much more effective at reducing the rising costs.  I call THAT voting against your own best interests.  There is just no better way to explain it.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 17, 2016)

Synthaholic said:


> *Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study*
> 
> *Economist says Canadian-style,  single-payer health plan would reap   huge savings from reduced paperwork and from  negotiated drug prices,   enough to pay for quality coverage for all  at less  cost to families   and businesses*
> 
> ...



I'm sure it would save billions. When the quality of care goes down costs generally go down. But then again, they said Obamacare would save us billions and cost no more than 900B $$. What's that estimate up to now?


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 17, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> When the quality of care goes down costs generally go down.



On what basis do you assume quality of care will go down?


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 17, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > When the quality of care goes down costs generally go down.
> ...



The test case for such a universal healthcare plan should be the VA. If the government cannot manage the VA then they have no right even thinking about what the op is proposing.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 17, 2016)

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > But when the pay outs get lower and thy will more will not accept it
> ...



Yeah spend all that time in med school to make minimum wage


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 17, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Valid, to a point, because if you ask veterans, you'll find that the VA experience varies from state to state, so it depends on who's in charge of the individual hospital, then the region, etc.

Hire good people and you get good service.  Hire people on the basis of political clout, and you get corruption.

Of course, you can say that about private hospitals - or any human institution - as well.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 17, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


The fact is most doctors can not maintain their practice without Medicare patients since they account for nearly 40% of their income.

I showed in a previous post in this thread, that a  doctor working 5 days a week doing only office visits with just Medicare patient with an overhead of 50% would make $126,000/yr.  However, a large part of a doctor's income comes medical procedures, in patient and out patient surgeries, and consults. According to the Medscape 2015 Medical Physician Compensation Report, *the average compensation of primary care physicians in the US is $195,000 and specialists,$284,000*   I don't see young people today walking away from these salaries since financial compensation is not the primary reason people become doctors.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 17, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No Doctor works for the VA when he can get a job elsewhere. They have the worst doctors in the United States. The VA is the last stop shop for Docs to go when they can't get a job anywhere else. I could give you a mountain of VA horror stories. The VA is typically good until you really need it. But when you really NEED it, it comes up short every time.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 17, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And they need the other 60% to make up for being underpaid by medicare

no one goes to med school with the goal of making 50K a year so money is a huge reason


----------



## Flopper (Apr 17, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Comparing Medicare and the VA is not a fair comparison. Medicare is only a payer.  Unlike the VA it doesn't delivery any medical care.  That's a huge difference.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 17, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I suppose you're right, but still, if the government cannot operate the VA then they shouldn't even think about a universal system. A universal system = government money/government rules. I.E. regulation by default.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 17, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


There's a big difference in universal healthcare where all medical care is delivered by the government and single payer which only provides financial coverage.

Half of the medical bills in the country are now paid by the government.  There would be significant savings in putting all claim processing of both Medicaid and the VA under Medicare and over time putting all private insurance under Medicare.  Private insurance would then become secondary to Medicare.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 17, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Once again, they claimed savings both for the government and the patient with Obamacare. Color me skeptical.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 17, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yes...government is efficient.

ROTFLMAO.....

Which isn't the same as saying I deny the existence of large inefficiencies.

That only shows you we don't have a market based system.  Such inefficiencies would have been wiped out a long time ago.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 17, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Medicare for All would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
> 
> 
> 
> Someday, sooner, we can all hope, rather than later, America will find the sanity and courage to implement a single payer system.


Maybe. As soon as everyone is paying taxes. The freebie pot is running on empty.


----------



## Slyhunter (Apr 17, 2016)

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > But when the pay outs get lower and thy will more will not accept it
> ...


You're living in fantasy land.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 17, 2016)

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > But when the pay outs get lower and thy will more will not accept it
> ...



Yeah....how's that working out for you ?


----------

