Barry-Care Was Always A Ploy To Get Single-Payer

[Freewill]

 

[The Derp]

You cannot guarantee universal coverage while also protecting profits for insurance companies.

So we need to decide what's more important to us; corporate profits or universal coverage. Because we can't have both.

 

[The Derp]

Note for example the AVERAGE Medicare payment is $295. But the cost to do ONE CT scan is $87! 341% markup! And why? Because of EMTALA! As one hospital CEO when asked "How do hospitals deal with the cost of the uninsured? His answer: " Like any business, we pass it on to the paying customers."

It's also because of the hospital's chargemaster, which is a document cooked up between the provider and insurers to make themselves huge profits.

 

[Freewill]

You cannot guarantee universal coverage while also protecting profits for insurance companies.

So we need to decide what's more important to us; corporate profits or universal coverage. Because we can't have both.

Not necessarily. Using Medicare for example. 80/20 split on payment. Then a person can buy advantage plans and supplements. The insurance companies are falling over themselves trying to get people to sign up. That system would work even if everyone was covered under the same 80/20 plan, maybe even better.

 

[healthmyths]

You cannot guarantee universal coverage while also protecting profits for insurance companies.

So we need to decide what's more important to us; corporate profits or universal coverage. Because we can't have both.

AND WE NEVER ASKED for Universal coverage!
The "health care crisis" never existed! It was made up!
FACTS Here are the facts!

 

[healthmyths]

I recall when the talk shows breached that issue in 2009, the Rats smiling and carefully parsing their words to the contrary. But that's what they wanted; the ACA was simply a means of getting there and they'd make a few bucks before it imploded. And now it has and only 4 of them voted against that amendment when it came up yesterday...the rest voted "present", a tactic the Kenyan often used on his rise to power. So let's get something straight about single-payer...it's impossible:

What would it cost if we insured everybody, all 326 million Americans?

Somewhere between $2.5 trillion and $3.5 trillion. An additional $1.35 trillion to $2.35 trillion more than the feds spend on Medicaid/Medicare now.

In 2016 the feds only brought in $3.27 trillion and spent $3.85 trillion. Where are the extra trillions supposed to come from? Taxes? To cover everyone and pay for it via taxes means the average person would owe an additional $4,100 to $7,200 every year. At a minimum, a family of four would have to pay $16,400 extra. You can buy a damn good private insurance policy for that kind of money … and have enough left over for a down-payment on a nice car.

Read more at How Much Would Single Payer Health Insurance Cost? | The Daily Liberator

Yeah single payer might be expensive but what we are doing now is even more so. I am as conservative as they come but the reality of the situation is that we are being taken for a ride by the Insurance companies and the health care industry.

Some complain that Medicare, which is single payer, holds down what health professionals are paid, so what? I have yet to see one that isn't making a ton of money.

I'm not saying this Medicare Trustees are:

The estimated depletion date for the Hospital Insurance Trust fund (HI) trust fund is 2029, one year later than in last year’s report. As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years. HI expenditures are projected to be lower than last year’s estimates, mostly due to lower inpatient hospital utilization assumptions and lower-than-expected spending in 2016.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...eports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2017.pdf
So the Part A portion of Medicare costs will exceed income in 2029.

So? What is your point? That RIGHT now they are running in a surplus?

What if we took EVERYONE from POTUS and Congress on down and put them on a 80/20 plan like Medicare. Would there be corruption in the system, certainly. Will there be corruption in the system we have today? Certainly seems that way.

The truth appears to be that the US pays the most for health care which isn't the best. Who keeps doing that? Something needs changed.

Then why don't you get angry at this? The same people you listen to regarding your health are TELLING YOU something in this study but you and millions like
you are I guess hoping for the one time YOU can sue your doctor. Medical liability lottery winner!!!
All the while though you complain about the high cost... and here is where 30% of health care costs GO!

 

[Freewill]

I recall when the talk shows breached that issue in 2009, the Rats smiling and carefully parsing their words to the contrary. But that's what they wanted; the ACA was simply a means of getting there and they'd make a few bucks before it imploded. And now it has and only 4 of them voted against that amendment when it came up yesterday...the rest voted "present", a tactic the Kenyan often used on his rise to power. So let's get something straight about single-payer...it's impossible:

What would it cost if we insured everybody, all 326 million Americans?

Somewhere between $2.5 trillion and $3.5 trillion. An additional $1.35 trillion to $2.35 trillion more than the feds spend on Medicaid/Medicare now.

In 2016 the feds only brought in $3.27 trillion and spent $3.85 trillion. Where are the extra trillions supposed to come from? Taxes? To cover everyone and pay for it via taxes means the average person would owe an additional $4,100 to $7,200 every year. At a minimum, a family of four would have to pay $16,400 extra. You can buy a damn good private insurance policy for that kind of money … and have enough left over for a down-payment on a nice car.

Read more at How Much Would Single Payer Health Insurance Cost? | The Daily Liberator

Yeah single payer might be expensive but what we are doing now is even more so. I am as conservative as they come but the reality of the situation is that we are being taken for a ride by the Insurance companies and the health care industry.

Some complain that Medicare, which is single payer, holds down what health professionals are paid, so what? I have yet to see one that isn't making a ton of money.

I'm not saying this Medicare Trustees are:

The estimated depletion date for the Hospital Insurance Trust fund (HI) trust fund is 2029, one year later than in last year’s report. As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years. HI expenditures are projected to be lower than last year’s estimates, mostly due to lower inpatient hospital utilization assumptions and lower-than-expected spending in 2016.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...eports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2017.pdf
So the Part A portion of Medicare costs will exceed income in 2029.

So? What is your point? That RIGHT now they are running in a surplus?

What if we took EVERYONE from POTUS and Congress on down and put them on a 80/20 plan like Medicare. Would there be corruption in the system, certainly. Will there be corruption in the system we have today? Certainly seems that way.

The truth appears to be that the US pays the most for health care which isn't the best. Who keeps doing that? Something needs changed.

Then why don't you get angry at this? The same people you listen to regarding your health are TELLING YOU something in this study but you and millions like
you are I guess hoping for the one time YOU can sue your doctor. Medical liability lottery winner!!!
All the while though you complain about the high cost... and here is where 30% of health care costs GO!
View attachment 141526

I am angry. I was going to start a thread about how angry I am at both sides of the aisle and Trump but there are too many threads already.

I have written Trump twice on this matter and I am going to do it again.

What if we had a 80/20 plan for EVERYONE the cost of premiums would have to go down, in my opinion. Say with this plan everyone paid 100 dollars per month, who could bitch? It just would need explained that no matter who you are someday you will get sick and for sure you will get old.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Who Loses If Trump Cuts Off Health Insurer Payments?
August 1, 2017



Axios: “They’re heavily concentrated in red states, and especially in the south.”

 

[Clementine]

I recall when the talk shows breached that issue in 2009, the Rats smiling and carefully parsing their words to the contrary. But that's what they wanted; the ACA was simply a means of getting there and they'd make a few bucks before it imploded. And now it has and only 4 of them voted against that amendment when it came up yesterday...the rest voted "present", a tactic the Kenyan often used on his rise to power. So let's get something straight about single-payer...it's impossible:

What would it cost if we insured everybody, all 326 million Americans?

Somewhere between $2.5 trillion and $3.5 trillion. An additional $1.35 trillion to $2.35 trillion more than the feds spend on Medicaid/Medicare now.

In 2016 the feds only brought in $3.27 trillion and spent $3.85 trillion. Where are the extra trillions supposed to come from? Taxes? To cover everyone and pay for it via taxes means the average person would owe an additional $4,100 to $7,200 every year. At a minimum, a family of four would have to pay $16,400 extra. You can buy a damn good private insurance policy for that kind of money … and have enough left over for a down-payment on a nice car.

Read more at How Much Would Single Payer Health Insurance Cost? | The Daily Liberator

Libs always vehemently deny the truth because they know how unpopular their agenda really is. Barney Frank was the only one who slipped and admitted that single payer was the endgame. All other denied it just as they lied about what was in the law and the effects it would have. It was indeed designed to slowly implode after getting people hooked on more government freebies. Once a government program is enacted, they never roll it back because people quickly become dependent and they would revolt against anyone who tries to take away things they feel entitled to have.

The lies about Obamacare continue. They will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure. They bitched right away that the problems from the start were the fault of the right because they didn't help write it. That seemed like an admission that allowing Republicans to give more input would have been the key to success. But, they excluded Republicans as the law was written by Big Pharms behind closed doors. Few knew or understand what was in it. Pelosi and others knew it was designed to make single payer a reality someday so they kept it as secret as possible and outright lied about the benefits it would provide and the harm it would do.

Now, they'll blame insurance companies, doctors and Republicans for the total failure and then claim that an even more radical solution is the only way to "save" it. All they are doing to making sure that those who have become accustomed to relying solely on government in exchange for votes will not have their subsidies taken away. The rest of us can look forward to even higher taxes to pay for it. Our quality of care will continue to decrease. Everyone will technically have insurance but actually accessing healthcare is a whole different matter. And if quality matters to you, prepare to be devastated.

Single payer would increase deaths more than Obamacare has. And, yes, Obamacare has caused the number of deaths to increase. It's a killer plan. Pushing more pain meds has caused more people to become hooked and has caused more deaths due to drugs. But, hey, as long as some hear the word 'free' they don't care about the details.


"From 2004-2013 the average death rate (all causes) for those aged 15 to 64 is 310.4 people per 100,000 people. The rate had been steady for a decade, with a low of 306.8, a high of 313.5, and bouncing around with a standard deviation of 2.2. If Obama’s expansion of insurance to 15 million people since 2013 has resulted in 21,000 fewer annual deaths, then the average death rate should have decreased from 310.4 to approximately 300 since then.

Instead, the average death rate increased to 320.4 per 100,000 people. If you exclude the rise in opioid related deaths, the figures still show an increase to 252.9 per 100,000."

"But back to opioid related deaths, they are worth including, because there’s now evidence that Obamacare is responsible for their rise. According to one analysis, between 2010 and 2015, male deaths from heroin increased from 2,452 to 9,881.
Between 2010 and 2015, female deaths from heroin increased from 584 to 3,108.

That’s a multiplier of 4.03 for male deaths, and a multiplier of 5.32 for female deaths

As reported by Time in an article entitled ‘How Obamacare Is Fueling America’s Opioid Epidemic’, this increase in heroin deaths was no coincidence.

To briefly sum up one of the points raised by the Time article, under Obamacare, $1.5 billion in Medicare payments is allocated to hospitals based in part on patient-satisfaction surveys. These surveys ask patients, “During this hospital stay, did the hospital staff do everything they could to help you with your pain?” And, “How often was your pain well controlled?”

Dr. Nick Sawyer of the UC Davis Department of Emergency Medicine summed it up:

“The government is telling us we need to make sure a patient’s pain is under control. It’s hard to make them happy without a narcotic. This policy is leading to ongoing opioid abuse.”

SHOCKING figures show disturbing side effect of Obamacare no one's reporting - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

 

[The Derp]

Not necessarily. Using Medicare for example. 80/20 split on payment. Then a person can buy advantage plans and supplements. The insurance companies are falling over themselves trying to get people to sign up. That system would work even if everyone was covered under the same 80/20 plan, maybe even better.

And if we inched up the Medicare tax slightly, we can even raise the split to 90/10 or 95/5 or even 100/0 depending on how high we want the payroll tax to be. But no longer will people have to spend money on premiums, co-pays, drugs, coinsurance, deductibles, etc. It makes so much sense, which would explain why we don't do it.

 

[The Derp]

AND WE NEVER ASKED for Universal coverage!

Trump ran on that promise in 2016.

The "health care crisis" never existed! It was made up!

There certainly was a crisis, with 60% of all bankruptcies pre-ACA medical related with an average debt of $17K. And of those people, 75% of them had insurance.

 

[The Derp]

Barney Frank was the only one who slipped and admitted that single payer was the endgame.

Of course it's the end-game. Ultimately, it does not matter to you as a patient who reimburses your provider for the care you received, just that they are reimbursed. So if Medicare does it instead of Aetna, it doesn't affect the care you already got from your provider. Plus, single payer means 100% portability, which you don't have with private insurers. Meaning, if you move to a state in the middle of the year but don't switch insurance to within that state and end up in the hospital, the single payer still reimburses the provider for the care...as opposed to now, when the insurers don't because each state regulates health insurance differently.

 

[Freewill]

Not necessarily. Using Medicare for example. 80/20 split on payment. Then a person can buy advantage plans and supplements. The insurance companies are falling over themselves trying to get people to sign up. That system would work even if everyone was covered under the same 80/20 plan, maybe even better.

And if we inched up the Medicare tax slightly, we can even raise the split to 90/10 or 95/5 or even 100/0 depending on how high we want the payroll tax to be. But no longer will people have to spend money on premiums, co-pays, drugs, coinsurance, deductibles, etc. It makes so much sense, which would explain why we don't do it.

Because, somehow people think that having company sponsored healthcare is some sort of freedom. It is only freedom until they get fired. Plus, as the video stated, the healthcare insurance racket is a big buyer of influence.

80 percent of the people have healthcare bought for them through their companies. They Usually have no say in what that coverage is even though they are given the allusion of choice. In the form that we are talking about they would have more choice and it would free companies the burden of administering the plans. BUT it might make healthcare cost fair which is not what the Insurance racketeers want to hear.

 

[The Derp]

Because, somehow people think that having company sponsored healthcare is some sort of freedom. It is only freedom until they get fired. Plus, as the video stated, the healthcare insurance racket is a big buyer of influence.

80 percent of the people have healthcare bought for them through their companies. They Usually have no say in what that coverage is even though they are given the allusion of choice. In the form that we are talking about they would have more choice and it would free companies the burden of administering the plans. BUT it might make healthcare cost fair which is not what the Insurance racketeers want to hear.

Agree! A single payer system would force providers to compete for your care by improving outcomes and reducing costs. But that's not the system we have now. There's no incentive for them to change the way they do business. Which is why we should abolish insurance companies, have a single payer for all health care, and render things like chargemasters moot.

 

[Clementine]

Because, somehow people think that having company sponsored healthcare is some sort of freedom. It is only freedom until they get fired. Plus, as the video stated, the healthcare insurance racket is a big buyer of influence.

80 percent of the people have healthcare bought for them through their companies. They Usually have no say in what that coverage is even though they are given the allusion of choice. In the form that we are talking about they would have more choice and it would free companies the burden of administering the plans. BUT it might make healthcare cost fair which is not what the Insurance racketeers want to hear.

Agree! A single payer system would force providers to compete for your care by improving outcomes and reducing costs. But that's not the system we have now. There's no incentive for them to change the way they do business. Which is why we should abolish insurance companies, have a single payer for all health care, and render things like chargemasters moot.

And government will say no to a lot of procedures. You will get a prescription for pain pills. And don't expect that you'll be approved for any new expensive treatments or experimental treatments when you have a fatal disease. Look at Charlie Gard. Government said no. Tough shit.

 

[Camp]

If the Affordable Healthcare Act was a ploy, it was a ploy to change health care in America a right instead of a privilege. It worked. The type of delivery system for health care was and still is secondary. The main result has been that repeal of the ACA to go back to a system where health care is viewed as a privilege totally responsible for the citizen to obtain has become largely a thing of the past. Only a few of the most backward states are still denying health care to its citizens.

 

[The Derp]

And government will say no to a lot of procedures.

Why? What was the reason a private insurer would deny a procedure? Because it would affect their bprofits. Government doesn't have to worry about profits. So why would government say no to "a lot of procedures"? On what are you basing that determination?

You will get a prescription for pain pills. And don't expect that you'll be approved for any new expensive treatments or experimental treatments when you have a fatal disease. Look at Charlie Gard. Government said no. Tough shit.

So, this gets to what I say all the time about Conservatives not bothering to do the hard work of actually researching things they talk about. Instead, you very lazily and sloppily regurgitate what you hear from Fox News or whatever bullshit outlet from where you get your news. Yes, the United Kingdom denied Charlie Gard the experimental and unproven treatment because clinical trials of that treatment were never done on subjects with his specific condition, but on subjects with similar conditions. As we know, Medicine is an exact science, so you can't fit a square peg into a round hole. Secondly, GOSH denied doing it because Charlie's conditioned had worsened beyond the conditions of those who were subjects of the trials who received that treatment.

You know what? I'm not going down this rabbit hole. Here's the BBC's summary of it. It's more complex than you're making it out to be.

 

[Oldstyle]

I missed something somewhere. Single payer is touted as the worst thing ever or the best thing since sliced bread? I can look it up and end the mystery.it can't be both. And the Affordable health care program isn't fixing anything. 10 dollar aspirins, thousand dollar a day hospital beds? Let's actually try to make health care affordable, not create government sanctioned ponzi schemes that dosen't address or fix the absurd increases in health care costs. Why IS healthcare, and for that matter housing growing out of hand? 50 years ago, neither was an issue. Now? Something smells fishy in Denmark.

Whether single payer is the best or the worst thing ever depends on your perspective. If you work for a health insurance company, it's the worst. However, for most Americans, removing health insurance from their lives and increasing payroll taxes would be well received. The healthcare discussion should be about saving more lives, curing cancer and other terrible disease, not constantly arguing about how the bills are to be paid. We have been fighting the battle over health insurance for over 20 years. Isn't it about time we turn to more important issues?

Interesting concept, Flopper! You think that instituting a Single Payer system will help cure cancer? How? Name a country that has Single Payer that is a leader in medical research! The US has been just that for a hundred years. Our healthcare system was the envy of much of the world. We were where you went to get treatment if you lived somewhere else and had the means to get here. Ask someone who gets their medical treatment through England's State run healthcare system if they think that they receive the best care that money can buy or whether they get stuck with whatever the system decides to give them?

Of course instituting single payer will not cure cancer or other diseases. What I'm saying is constant fighting over insurance reform and that is exactly what Obamacare is, takes the attention away from other really important healthcare issues.

Actually you want find much difference in the satisfaction with the qualify of healthcare systems. According to Gallup, 50% of Americans, 53% of the British, and 48% of the Canadians are not satisfied with healthcare quality.

I don't understand how single payer will hurt medical research. We have had single payer for over 70 years and half the insured are already covered by single payer and yet we are the world leader is medical research.

There are several reasons why the United States leads the world and none of them are directly connected to how we pay for medical care. China which has the largest single payer system in the world and Britain which has oldest are number 2 and 3 in medical research. However, the major factor is not how we pay our medical bills but the amount of funding devoted to research.



Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

With all due respect, Flopper...the ACA was never about health insurance "reform"...it was always about shifting the cost of premiums to the Middle Class and the healthy to cover healthcare for the poor and people with pre existing conditions! The architects of the ACA lied to the Middle Class when they promised them that it would save the average Middle Class family $2,500 a year in premiums!

I never said Obamacare was insurance reform. I said it was insurance legislation. It regulates insurance coverage, makes insurance required, limits profit margins, eliminates some junk insurance, subsides costs based on income, etc.. There are few pages in the law that address healthcare costs and quality of care but it's mostly all about insurance and providing coverage.

There are serious problems in Obamacare which need to be fixed. And yes it can be fixed. This is exactly what republican legislation is trying to do. However, I believe the proposed fixes will make it worst not better.

Democrats underestimated the cost of insuring people with prexisting conditions and overestimated the revenue from the individual mandate. Thus it did not provide sufficient subsidies for middle class tax payers buying individual insurance. They also did not anticipate republican states rejecting enhanced Medicaid which dumped a lot of really sick people into the individual insurance market which drove costs up even further.

Oh, come on, Flopper! The Democrats who crafted the ACA didn't "underestimate" anything! They knew very well that the ACA wouldn't work as written but they "cooked the books" by giving the CBO numbers that they KNEW were not realistic and lied to the Middle Class about what it would cost them!

 

[OnePercenter]

Quit kidding yourself.

The 'outrageous premiums' started after Reagan deregulated the HMO act. Isn't it time to cap premiums that health insurance companies charge since, with the rubber stamping of mergers and acquisitions done by baby bush, healthcare insurance derive the majority of their profit from 90%+ of providers they directly or indirectly own? ie; they pay themselves and charge you twice or more.

Who's kidding who here? Do you know what the percentage of Americans is that are in those exchanges? Almost 180M are in company plans. Then there is Medicare and Medicaid, and the VA. I've seen a hell of a lot more ruined lives and families than you have in the last 30 years of my business career. Those outcomes are a product of as many stories as there are victims...all you leftists have accomplished is lying to the folks who thought they could trust you...."keep your doctor, keep your plan....that Kenyan piece of shit told you suckers that 28 times....28 times. You had your shot, now STFU while we try to clean up your mess.

How many of those 180M are employees of small businesses that derive their insurance from exchanges?

American workers have ruined lives because employers don't pay the enough. The 'market price' mentality has gone wild.

The only reason you weren't able to 'keep your doctor, keep your plan' was insurance companies.

 

[OnePercenter]

We need single payer. It's the ONLY option after Reagan deregulated the bipartisan HMO act.

Na, keep your fucking single payer to yourselves... leave the rest of the country out of it. jack weed

You like the fact that healthcare insurance companies charge an exorbitant amount for their products?

The very concept of so called "insurance" is nothing more than fraud, paying into a "pool" and expecting anything other than Waste, fraud and abuse is juvenile at very best... lol

It is when you have no control or viable competition. You can thank the Republicans for that.