Republcans embrace Obamacare without calling it that...

[^_^ 5,021]

There's nothing in this proposal about the payroll deduction being made optional.

So in effect, this is a ... mandate to buy a private product!

It's OBAMACARE!

p.s. it even has subsidies to help you pay premiums. again, just like obamacare

House Republicans’ Official Proposal: Privatize Medicare

House Republicans are preparing to introduce a 10-year budget Tuesday that will eliminate Medicare and replace it with a private insurance system that closely resembles the new health care law.

...

Currently seniors 65 and over are guaranteed a defined benefit program: taxpayers finance the system, and the government agrees to pay for seniors' health care services (though seniors have to pitch in too). Ryan's plan would leave that system intact for anybody currently on Medicare, or expecting to be on Medicare within 10 years. For everyone else the program would be radically overhauled. Future beneficiaries would no longer have a single payer system to rely on. Rather, they'd be given a menu of private insurance plans to pick from, and subsidies to help pay their premiums.

...

It's structured an awful lot like the new health care law, which means the GOP's position on health care is about to become Obamacare for seniors, but not for anybody else.

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

what's a "Republcans"

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Just stop all this nonsense and give us national single payer. Jeez.

[Pooky 3,830]

There's nothing in this proposal about the payroll deduction being made optional.

So in effect, this is a ... mandate to buy a private product!

It's OBAMACARE GARBAGE!

p.s. it even has subsidies to help you pay premiums. again, just like obamacare obamacarp

Just a few small repairs.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

There's nothing in this proposal about the payroll deduction being made optional.

So in effect, this is a ... mandate to buy a private product!

It's OBAMACARE!

p.s. it even has subsidies to help you pay premiums. again, just like obamacare

If this thread means anything to you AJ, you will reply to it within the next 48 hrs.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Why_Me

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just stop all this nonsense and give us national single payer. Jeez.

Amen.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

single payer woudln't solve any problems. It would just send us into even more of a debt oblivion without solving the problem of actual "cost."

The beast in health care is and always has been 'cost' the whole time. Instead of focusing on the reality of why it's so expensive (it's not 'non-payers' either) we want to attack insurance companies for the service they provide, because ultimately they are the ones we are paying (but guess what, so are they).

On the topic though....

I'm trying to figure out how this differs from the current medicare tax? If it's just changing the system up a bit?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

single payer woudln't solve any problems. It would just send us into even more of a debt oblivion without solving the problem of actual "cost."

At minimum you'd save the bureaucracy that the fragmented private insurance system causes. Doctor's offices today employ an army of people to do nothing but deal with the insurance companies. Medical billing specialists. It's a cost that the doctors have got to recover. Every visit, you pay for that. This is, depending on who you ask, 15%-20% of our healthcare spending. That's pretty significant in my book.

Don't believe it? Then riddle me this: There is an urgent care facility down the road from my house where it costs $115.00 to be seen - mostly by a RNP rather than a MD. Except, if you're a patient that just pays cash and don't need to have a claim with your insurance filed, then the cost of that visit drops down to $90.00 - a savings of 22%. Now why might that be? I'd speculate that this is because you're not requiring and consuming the administrative overhead that the insurers require?

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

wouldn't that same overhead exist with any government plan?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

At minimum you'd save the bureaucracy that the fragmented private insurance system causes. Doctor's offices today employ an army of people to do nothing but deal with the insurance companies. Medical billing specialists. It's a cost that the doctors have got to recover. Every visit, you pay for that. This is, depending on who you ask, 15%-20% of our healthcare spending. That's pretty significant in my book.

Don't believe it? Then riddle me this: There is an urgent care facility down the road from my house where it costs $115.00 to be seen - mostly by a RNP rather than a MD. Except, if you're a patient that just pays cash and don't need to have a claim with your insurance filed, then the cost of that visit drops down to $90.00 - a savings of 22%. Now why might that be? I'd speculate that this is because you're not requiring and consuming the administrative overhead that the insurers require?

Cash always wins the day in almost any industry.

Hell our company will give you a discounted rate for paying with cash versus credit cards/financing.

Medicare is much harder to deal with though than your typical insurance company. You'll also get a lot more claims denied and less money from your medicare claims as well. That's the beauty of negotiated rates with BCBS vs. the government. Also why many doctors refuse to take medicare/medicaid.

Medical billing is not hard at all actually. If you understand the process. It's actually just simple paperwork at the end of the day.

I will agree part of the problem though is that EVERYONE needs to send a bill out....

The hospitical, each individual doctor, each specialist, each lab, etc...

If there's one thing that should change, it's that factor. You should get ONE bill for your entire stay. It shouldn't be up to you to disperse the payments.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I will agree part of the problem though is that EVERYONE needs to send a bill out....

The hospitical, each individual doctor, each specialist, each lab, etc...

That's not as much of a problem as the various bills that need to be sent to different insurers and the figuring out what specific insurers require to process a claim, what the specific plan covers - there could be hundreds of plans for each insurer - and so on. This is what medical billing specialists do all day, every day. There's no value added here, only cost. Significant cost. Go single payer with one clear set of reimbursement rules and you no longer have any need for this army of medical billing specialists. And this is just the cost in the doc's office. There is another army of paid staff on the other side of the equation that also needs to be compensated. Single payer would cut most of that out.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's not as much of a problem as the various bills that need to be sent to different insurers and the figuring out what specific insurers require to process a claim, what the specific plan covers - there could be hundreds of plans for each insurer - and so on. This is what medical billing specialists do all day, every day. There's no value added here, only cost. Significant cost. Go single payer with one clear set of reimbursement rules and you no longer have any need for this army of medical billing specialists. And this is just the cost in the doc's office. There is another army of paid staff on the other side of the equation that also needs to be compensated. Single payer would cut most of that out.

Are you willing to kill an entire industry, just for a single payer system in this country?

The 'idea' always sounds nice in up in the thought cloud, but on paper, you'd be creating hell to an industry that's so deeply embeded in the way it is, you'd cause unemployment to soar and a decline in health care for quite awhile while the system recovers.

The only feasible way that a 'single-payer' system would would work is on a strict volunteer situtation that grows over time. We're talking a decade or longer for transition.

Need I remind there again, that no one denies more claims and pays less than medicare/medicaid. This is not something that can be part of a bureaucracy in this country.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Are you willing to kill an entire industry, just for a single payer system in this country?

The 'idea' always sounds nice in up in the thought cloud, but on paper, you'd be creating hell to an industry that's so deeply embeded in the way it is, you'd cause unemployment to soar and a decline in health care for quite awhile while the system recovers.

The only feasible way that a 'single-payer' system would would work is on a strict volunteer situtation that grows over time. We're talking a decade or longer for transition.

Need I remind there again, that no one denies more claims and pays less than medicare/medicaid. This is not something that can be part of a bureaucracy in this country.

What use is the medical industry if you can't afford to use it? I have what would be called "Cadillac" insurance and I still need a medical savings account to cover everything that isn't paid by the insurance. Between my outrageous premiums, which my employer pays more than half of, and my savings account I put out over $800/month for medical coverage. I still have to be very careful when going to the doctor because a lot of things are not covered and I get stuck with the bill. It is total BS.

[The Dude 206]

Just stop all this nonsense and give us national single payer. Jeez.

+1

single payer woudln't solve any problems. It would just send us into even more of a debt oblivion without solving the problem of actual "cost."

The beast in health care is and always has been 'cost' the whole time. Instead of focusing on the reality of why it's so expensive (it's not 'non-payers' either) we want to attack insurance companies for the service they provide, because ultimately they are the ones we are paying (but guess what, so are they).

On the topic though....

I'm trying to figure out how this differs from the current medicare tax? If it's just changing the system up a bit?

Seriously Paul, just walk away so we can discuss this intelligently.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

+1

Seriously Paul, just walk away so we can discuss this intelligently.

You haven't said one intelligent thing yet in posting the last couple of days.

Of course this is typical from people like you. It's easy for you to come in and use a smart ####### comment and walk away than it is for you to actually debate. You feel it increases your ####### size by telling someone off, but unless you can support yourself in your arguments, I would suggest shutting the hell up.

You can now pick up your tail, turn around, and walk right back out the door.

Kthx.