Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LolSingle Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.ACA is no longer mandatory and you can be as stupid and paranoid as you want, super duper.No. They don't. They can't have me arrested if I don't want to buy what they're selling. The government can. That's a profound difference. You can't just pretend it isn't real.
Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?So shut the hell up and let the informed adults Tinker with it as they will forever, just like in every other modern country...
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide you with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
No it is all about serving the public good. how are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap college and training ID card to end illegal immigration and work, good vacations and infrastructure? Or taxing the rich more than the rest? Answer the scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you...In other words, it all about controlI agree a large majority coming together to create a stable health care system covering all would be immensely helpful, but doing it by a slim parliamentary majority is not in itself unreasonable. A Constitutional Amendment is certainly not a requirement, as the Constitution isn't supposed to mandate policy aims. All told, the ACA didn't suffer because there was something wrong with it, but because there was a mouth-breathing propaganda campaign to frighten the rubes aiming at destroying the legislation. Now that this "consensus" is growing, the Goobers find it hard to repeal the law. Yes, progress is obviously not a straight line, and it's even more difficult since the ACA had to deal with, and tried to preserve, a deeply dysfunctional health care system to begin with.
So, yes, it's hard, but in the end there won't be strike through the Gordian Knot any time soon, and all there is is the arc of history bending toward justice, toward the reasonable, and the hard work of moving that darned boulder up the hill to get it done.
wrong ACA failed because it was based on taxing the shit out of young people to pay for medicine for old people.
IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10. Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized. We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic. It worked for generations.
Lol
Do you not understand that insurance policy that simply covers routine treatments and sub-$10 prescriptions would cost alsmot nothing and be USEFUL TO NO ONE?
actually that is exactly what obozocare was trying to do, except that there are no prescriptions under $10.
I understand that you are mentally challenged but you kind of made my point. when insurance did not cover routine visits and cheap prescription, the premiums were small, and it only paid when you had a major illness requiring hospitalization. Now, we want insurance to cover everything. That, my little friend, is the problem. there aint no free lunch.
No moron, Obamacare was certainly not trying to do that, in fact it was doing the EXACT OPPOSITE, by requiring comprehensive coverage, not meaningless insurance that bailed on people when they needed it most.
Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.ACA is no longer mandatory and you can be as stupid and paranoid as you want, super duper.
Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?So shut the hell up and let the informed adults Tinker with it as they will forever, just like in every other modern country...
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
Me and millions just like me want nothing to do with what you speak of there.No it is all about serving the public good. how are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap college and training ID card to end illegal immigration and work, good vacations and infrastructure? Or taxing the rich more than the rest? Answer the scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you...In other words, it all about controlwrong ACA failed because it was based on taxing the shit out of young people to pay for medicine for old people.
IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10. Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized. We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic. It worked for generations.
Lol
Do you not understand that insurance policy that simply covers routine treatments and sub-$10 prescriptions would cost alsmot nothing and be USEFUL TO NO ONE?
actually that is exactly what obozocare was trying to do, except that there are no prescriptions under $10.
I understand that you are mentally challenged but you kind of made my point. when insurance did not cover routine visits and cheap prescription, the premiums were small, and it only paid when you had a major illness requiring hospitalization. Now, we want insurance to cover everything. That, my little friend, is the problem. there aint no free lunch.
No moron, Obamacare was certainly not trying to do that, in fact it was doing the EXACT OPPOSITE, by requiring comprehensive coverage, not meaningless insurance that bailed on people when they needed it most.
As long as it’s an opt in for those that want it, And an automatic exemption for those that don’t.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.
Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
It is no longer mandatory so give it up for Christ's sake. You can now be as stupid and paranoid as you like no worries.LolSingle Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.ACA is no longer mandatory and you can be as stupid and paranoid as you want, super duper.
Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?So shut the hell up and let the informed adults Tinker with it as they will forever, just like in every other modern country...
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide you with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
First of all you need to remove the socialist cock out of your mouth...
Who pays for all this shit? Why must the healthy pay for the unhealthy?
As with any government run program fraud will always be rampant...
What about Choice? Why force people that want nothing to do with socialist entitlement programs into them? especially when they can’t afford them and will not benefit them.
And you get to go bankrupt and lose everything if one of your daughters gets cancer for example. EnjoyAs long as it’s an opt in for those that want it, And an automatic exemption for those that don’t.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.
Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.
Oh insurance was going toward catastrophic high-deductible insurance... The real problem is health care costs so much period..... Takes time. And more competition and regulation.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
If Medicare Part B stayed the same, it would still cost over $540 for a family of 4. That still isn't cheap and there is no way to remain solvent with those low premiums. Add in the mandatory deductibles and coinsurance and all you have is ObamaCare 2.0.
That might be truth if the family of 4 are seniors, age 65+ but the typical family of 4 would have 2 adults age 31 and 26 with 2 children under age 16. There healthcare cost would be well below that seniors as would be their premium.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
If Medicare Part B stayed the same, it would still cost over $540 for a family of 4. That still isn't cheap and there is no way to remain solvent with those low premiums. Add in the mandatory deductibles and coinsurance and all you have is ObamaCare 2.0.
Shit happensAnd you get to go bankrupt and lose everything if one of your daughters gets cancer for example. EnjoyAs long as it’s an opt in for those that want it, And an automatic exemption for those that don’t.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
That might be truth if the family of 4 are seniors, age 65+ but the typical family of 4 would have 2 adults age 31 and 26 with 2 children under age 16. There healthcare cost would be well below that seniors as would be their premium.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
If Medicare Part B stayed the same, it would still cost over $540 for a family of 4. That still isn't cheap and there is no way to remain solvent with those low premiums. Add in the mandatory deductibles and coinsurance and all you have is ObamaCare 2.0.
That might be truth if the family of 4 are seniors, age 65+ but the typical family of 4 would have 2 adults age 31 and 26 with 2 children under age 16. There healthcare cost would be well below that seniors as would be their premium.Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well. There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost. The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it. I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement. We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost. As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
You need to 'splain this better Lucy! It makes no sense as written.
If Medicare Part B stayed the same, it would still cost over $540 for a family of 4. That still isn't cheap and there is no way to remain solvent with those low premiums. Add in the mandatory deductibles and coinsurance and all you have is ObamaCare 2.0.
All insurance has deductibles and coinsurance. The difference with Medicare, is that the admin. fees are a fraction of those in the private insurance sector.Complex issue. But you are correct. A 'for profit' healthcare system doesn't work.I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.
How do people that are retired have 5% taken from their paychecks? Do self employed people pay 10%? Medicare fraud is perpetrated by providers, not patients.
Start with a public option, when anyone can purchase Medicare plans to rival private insurance. It will help Medicare, and it will be a great option for younger/healthier people who don't use doctors/meds at the same rate as others.
You do realize that Medicare has both deductibles and coinsurance. Plus the premiums would have to be much, much higher for women to make it work, and you know we can't have that!
.
That's a bargain. Good thing you had insurance. What's your share of the premium?I took my wife to the emergency room. A couple with no insurance waiting next to us was asked for 0 dollars.
We have a so-called Cadillac insurance plan through my employer.
I was required to pay 100 dollars for the visit.
All insurance has deductibles and coinsurance. The difference with Medicare, is that the admin. fees are a fraction of those in the private insurance sector.Complex issue. But you are correct. A 'for profit' healthcare system doesn't work.I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.
How do people that are retired have 5% taken from their paychecks? Do self employed people pay 10%? Medicare fraud is perpetrated by providers, not patients.
Start with a public option, when anyone can purchase Medicare plans to rival private insurance. It will help Medicare, and it will be a great option for younger/healthier people who don't use doctors/meds at the same rate as others.
You do realize that Medicare has both deductibles and coinsurance. Plus the premiums would have to be much, much higher for women to make it work, and you know we can't have that!
.
Sure it can. It just costs 1000 times more than a govt. run defense.I also don't believe the private sector can run our military or national defense. So that makes me a liberal? I don't think so.Not a lib.I'm a conservative.
....
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
You are a liberal darling. Sorry to dissapoint.
5% number is bad - Medicare-Medicaid is already 4.35% and you want to cover everyone for 5%?
You want government run healthcare because you don't think free market can solve this issue --right?
That's a (very) liberal position.
Don't be ashamed SmakeALib
LolSingle Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.ACA is no longer mandatory and you can be as stupid and paranoid as you want, super duper.
Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?So shut the hell up and let the informed adults Tinker with it as they will forever, just like in every other modern country...
Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.
The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement. For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years. In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer. The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population. With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare. This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.
With Single Payer, everyone is covered. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.
Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.
Cost go down in single payer system. Serious diseases can be caught earlier. Economies of scale reduce costs. Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified. Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated.
Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system. If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends. In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide you with costs figures.
Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system. In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.
First of all you need to remove the socialist cock out of your mouth...
Who pays for all this shit? Why must the healthy pay for the unhealthy?
As with any government run program fraud will always be rampant...
What about Choice? Why force people that want nothing to do with socialist entitlement programs into them? especially when they can’t afford them and will not benefit them.
All insurance has deductibles and coinsurance. The difference with Medicare, is that the admin. fees are a fraction of those in the private insurance sector.Complex issue. But you are correct. A 'for profit' healthcare system doesn't work.I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.
How do people that are retired have 5% taken from their paychecks? Do self employed people pay 10%? Medicare fraud is perpetrated by providers, not patients.
Start with a public option, when anyone can purchase Medicare plans to rival private insurance. It will help Medicare, and it will be a great option for younger/healthier people who don't use doctors/meds at the same rate as others.
You do realize that Medicare has both deductibles and coinsurance. Plus the premiums would have to be much, much higher for women to make it work, and you know we can't have that!
.
Hell, it ought to be. If we move to "Medicare for All" the insurance companies will no longer have to appeal to customers to make a profit, they'll just have to lobby government, and they're pretty good at that. That should represent a significant savings. Should. But whadya bet they pocket most of it as windfall? Why not, they'll have a captive customer base.
