Koch backed think-tank finds Medicare for all would cut health care spending

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Logical fallacy.  You are assuming that government-enforced health care will be cheaper than what we have today.  That may or may not be true.  But if people are paying anywhere near $3.2 trillion today in premiums, then paying $3.2 trillion in additional taxes won’t really provide any relief.  And since there is no accurate way to predict that $32 trillion in liberal fantasy monies, I would proffer the idea that it will actually cost MORE than anticipated, as is normal with most government entities.

if only there were some way to compare other countries' healthcare expenditures and systems with our own to determine an estimate of what a similar system would cost in the us. oh well. time to give up and increase insurance ceo pay another few million (in liberal fantasy monies, of course) 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Logical fallacy.  You are assuming that government-enforced health care will be cheaper than what we have today.  That may or may not be true.  But if people are paying anywhere near $3.2 trillion today in premiums, then paying $3.2 trillion in additional taxes won’t really provide any relief.  And since there is no accurate way to predict that $32 trillion in liberal fantasy monies, I would proffer the idea that it will actually cost MORE than anticipated, as is normal with most government entities.

 

  That's the entire premise of the article on which this discussion is based. The $24 to $32 trillion estimates are not for medicare premiums, it's for the cost of all health care under such a system. The estimate of $34 trillion is for all related healthcare costs under the current system. So the estimated savings in total expenditures over 10 years would be between $2 trillion and $10 trillion.

 

  Whether health care is funded by wage earnings or taxes, it's still your money.

 

  

[yuna628 9,707]

If our current rate of spending on medicare cannot even allow an elderly person to obtain care without having to get expensive supplements that don't even cover everything.... well I just don't see how this idea is going to work. I mean, seriously, I deal with this stuff with my parents all the time... my Dad goes without medication he really needs because he has no coverage. Neither medicare or the supplement would ever pay for it.

 

My husband will be receiving a $1,000 raise for the next year. We are thankful for this blessing, even in the midst of slight benefit payment increases coming out of his paycheck. There has actually been a freeze on wages for employees for years, and this raise is only made possible by there being a surplus due to good fiscal spending. We would all like to assume that if employers didn't have to provide health insurance, that they would raise wages. That remains to be seen. It's not that I don't agree with the premise of this thread, I simply remain skeptical. If you are paying an insurance directly or if you are paying heavy taxes, you are still paying for it one way or another. While my husband still hopes for the day America will have a system that works for healthcare similar to the UK but not so similar as to encounter some of the severe problems with it, I always tell him I think that dream is far too off.

[Póg mo 1,749]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

if only there were some way to compare other countries' healthcare expenditures and systems with our own to determine an estimate of what a similar system would cost in the us. oh well. time to give up and increase insurance ceo pay another few million (in liberal fantasy monies, of course) 

It was a Koch brothers report, not exactly socialist cheerleaders. 

 

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

If our current rate of spending on medicare cannot even allow an elderly person to obtain care without having to get expensive supplements that don't even cover everything.... well I just don't see how this idea is going to work. I mean, seriously, I deal with this stuff with my parents all the time... my Dad goes without medication he really needs because he has no coverage. Neither medicare or the supplement would ever pay for it.

Yes, which is exactly why I suggested that Medicare coverage be raised to 100% of coverage. The reason why some medications are so expensive is because drug medical device manufacturers have been able to game the system. 

 

 

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

My husband will be receiving a $1,000 raise for the next year. We are thankful for this blessing, even in the midst of slight benefit payment increases coming out of his paycheck. There has actually been a freeze on wages for employees for years, and this raise is only made possible by there being a surplus due to good fiscal spending. We would all like to assume that if employers didn't have to provide health insurance, that they would raise wages. That remains to be seen. It's not that I don't agree with the premise of this thread, I simply remain skeptical. If you are paying an insurance directly or if you are paying heavy taxes, you are still paying for it one way or another. While my husband still hopes for the day America will have a system that works for healthcare similar to the UK but not so similar as to encounter some of the severe problems with it, I always tell him I think that dream is far too off.

Much of the reason for lack of pay increases is due to health care making up a larger and larger share of a companies expenses. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

if only there were some way to compare other countries' healthcare expenditures and systems with our own to determine an estimate of what a similar system would cost in the us. oh well. time to give up and increase insurance ceo pay another few million (in liberal fantasy monies, of course) 

You cannot compare to other countries because our systems differ as do our GDPs.  We all know that insurance companies are there to make a profit; but so are medical facilities.  When my hospital or doctor charges me 10 TIMES what the insurance has to pay, there is a problem.  The way I see it, if the government is in charge of healthcare, the only difference will be that higher costs will be allowed, and the end user will end up paying them.  So instead of my medical bill being a portion of 10%, it will be a portion of 25-50%.  All in all, it will cost me more than it does today.  I’d love it if someone could prove this wrong, then maybe we’d have a fighting chance.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

You cannot compare to other countries because our systems differ as do our GDPs.  We all know that insurance companies are there to make a profit; but so are medical facilities.  When my hospital or doctor charges me 10 TIMES what the insurance has to pay, there is a problem.  The way I see it, if the government is in charge of healthcare, the only difference will be that higher costs will be allowed, and the end user will end up paying them.  So instead of my medical bill being a portion of 10%, it will be a portion of 25-50%.  All in all, it will cost me more than it does today.  I’d love it if someone could prove this wrong, then maybe we’d have a fighting chance.

you can't? aw shucks, i could have swore i've seen it done before.

 

the way you see it isn't based on any sort of real life comparison, i can tell.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

You cannot compare to other countries because our systems differ as do our GDPs.  We all know that insurance companies are there to make a profit; but so are medical facilities.  When my hospital or doctor charges me 10 TIMES what the insurance has to pay, there is a problem.  The way I see it, if the government is in charge of healthcare, the only difference will be that higher costs will be allowed, and the end user will end up paying them.  So instead of my medical bill being a portion of 10%, it will be a portion of 25-50%.  All in all, it will cost me more than it does today.  I’d love it if someone could prove this wrong, then maybe we’d have a fighting chance.

 

  That's because you are wrong.

 

  Medicare reimbursement is not decided by hospitals, it is determined by the government. It is much lower than what private insurance pays, and much much lower than what the hospital would charge uninsured payments. This is one of the ways that single payer would actually keep cost's down.

 

  In Canada, for example one payer, the government, determines the cost of every procedure. In the US, fragmented insurance companies negotiate separately. They would like to pay out less obviously, but they don't have negotiating power. Medicare is the only reimbursement where they can say this is what we pay, take it or leave it.  For insurance companies, the hospital will opt out of the network if the insurance companies don't give them what they want.

 

   

[Dashinka 24,758]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Oh you wanted me figure out how much each individual would see taxes increase by? Talk to the IRS or someone with access to individual income information. My guess is that if it costs $24 trillion, then taxes will go up by the same amount, or we could be fiscal conservative about it, and borrow the money instead. Anyway I thought it obvious that an increase in taxes, would be offset by a corresponding decrease in health insurance premium costs. Americans would even save money, with the added benefits of fewer people with cronic health problems arising from lack of primary health coverage, and fewer people being forced into court in order to file for personal bankruptcies. Other benefits include include making it easier for family members to quit their employment, in order to take care of loved ones, without risk being penalized for not being able to afford health insurance. It would also free workers from being forced to remain employed in certain positions, just to receive health insurance, and direct their energies into things that might further benefit society at large. 

Well, the US government collects approximately $4.2 trillion in income taxes each year so this would be a 50% increase in needed revenue assuming the lower $2.4 trillion annual cost.  With about 161,000,000 Americans paying taxes, that would be about $15,000 additional taxes annually for each of those taxpayers.  As far as the projected savings, that is a big assumption that people’s personal practices will change, they may, and they may not.  There is also a big assumption that the US government would run this type of program efficiently and we know that is a big stretch.  The main point is that this will cost a lot of money and we have already seen experiments at the state level crash and burn over the projected costs.

[yuna628 9,707]

21 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  That's because you are wrong.

 

  Medicare reimbursement is not decided by hospitals, it is determined by the government. It is much lower than what private insurance pays, and much much lower than what the hospital would charge uninsured payments. This is one of the ways that single payer would actually keep cost's down.

 

  In Canada, for example one payer, the government, determines the cost of every procedure. In the US, fragmented insurance companies negotiate separately. They would like to pay out less obviously, but they don't have negotiating power. Medicare is the only reimbursement where they can say this is what we pay, take it or leave it.  For insurance companies, the hospital will opt out of the network if the insurance companies don't give them what they want.

 

   

Medicare reimbursement payments cannot keep hospitals, doctors, clinics and their staff afloat alone. How would all of these individuals be able to survive if this was the only reimbursement coming in? There are already doctors as it is that have trouble with both medicare and insurance company payouts.

19 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Well, the US government collects approximately $4.2 trillion in income taxes each year so this would be a 50% increase in needed revenue assuming the lower $2.4 trillion annual cost.  With about 161,000,000 Americans paying taxes, that would be about $15,000 additional taxes annually for each of those taxpayers.  As far as the projected savings, that is a big assumption that people’s personal practices will change, they may, and they may not.  There is also a big assumption that the US government would run this type of program efficiently and we know that is a big stretch.  The main point is that this will cost a lot of money and we have already seen experiments at the state level crash and burn over the projected costs.

This part I strongly agree with.

 

And for those who are not current administration supporters, that believe everything this administration is touching is slowly being run into the ground. Can you imagine if this POTUS had his hands on the wheel for this idea? Policies regarding this big medicare healthcare for all program could change and become unstable over time as it fluctuated from administration to administration (which happens in the UK). I don't see how to get around that potential issue.

[Póg mo 1,749]

12 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Medicare reimbursement payments cannot keep hospitals, doctors, clinics and their staff afloat alone. How would all of these individuals be able to survive if this was the only reimbursement coming in? There are already doctors as it is that have trouble with both medicare and insurance company payouts.

This part I strongly agree with.

 

And for those who are not current administration supporters, that believe everything this administration is touching is slowly being run into the ground. Can you imagine if this POTUS had his hands on the wheel for this idea? Policies regarding this big medicare healthcare for all program could change and become unstable over time as it fluctuated from administration to administration (which happens in the UK). I don't see how to get around that potential issue.

Well I could imagine that he would not be able to get away with running it into the ground. Medicare functions a whole lot better then medicade or veteren health care, precisely because the latter two don't cover anywhere near as many people, and the people who rely on them for health care benefits are much easier to ignore than Medicare beneficiaries. 

[yuna628 9,707]

4 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Well I could imagine that he would not be able to get away with running it into the ground. Medicare functions a whole lot better then medicade or veteren health care, precisely because the latter two don't cover anywhere near as many people, and the people who rely on them for health care benefits are much easier to ignore than Medicare beneficiaries. 

You know that they want to make vast cuts to medicare right?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

34 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Medicare reimbursement payments cannot keep hospitals, doctors, clinics and their staff afloat alone. How would all of these individuals be able to survive if this was the only reimbursement coming in? There are already doctors as it is that have trouble with both medicare and insurance company payouts.

 

 

   They will accept medicare or opt out (if that is still an option). That would be there decision. 

 

    My doctor just retired and sent us a goodbye letter. It says 80% of his patients were medicare and he suggested specific doctors for them to switch to. I have seen his car and his house, and we have talked occasionally over the years about our kids and hobbies and interests. I get the impression their office is not doing too bad by medicare. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Well, the US government collects approximately $4.2 trillion in income taxes each year so this would be a 50% increase in needed revenue assuming the lower $2.4 trillion annual cost.  With about 161,000,000 Americans paying taxes, that would be about $15,000 additional taxes annually for each of those taxpayers.  As far as the projected savings, that is a big assumption that people’s personal practices will change, they may, and they may not.  There is also a big assumption that the US government would run this type of program efficiently and we know that is a big stretch.  The main point is that this will cost a lot of money and we have already seen experiments at the state level crash and burn over the projected costs.

You MUST be wrong. Because Steel and Val say I am wrong, and you are saying what I am saying.  Of course the US government can make things better.  That's why the penny costs 5 cents to make.  And the USPS is such a profitable entity.

 

Just stop your yammering and hand over your $15,000 annually and let's get this show on the road!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

You MUST be wrong. Because Steel and Val say I am wrong, and you are saying what I am saying.  Of course the US government can make things better.  That's why the penny costs 5 cents to make.  And the USPS is such a profitable entity.

 

Just stop your yammering and hand over your $15,000 annually and let's get this show on the road!

 

  The part of your post I highlighted was indeed wrong. Medicare dictates the reimbursement. Hospitals accept that or opt out. It's not the other way around. 

 

  Can you not just accept you are wrong once in a while without turning every thing into a drama?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The part of your post I highlighted was indeed wrong. Medicare dictates the reimbursement. Hospitals accept that or opt out. It's not the other way around. 

 

  Can you not just accept you are wrong once in a while without turning every thing into a drama?

So what happens when the majority of hospitals opt out?  Insurance dictates the payout now.  How is it any different?

 

I don't mind being proven wrong.  I have nothing to offer here but my own opinion about what will happen.  Do you have anything in writing that proves my opinion wrong, or shows how the medical system you are suggesting will actually work and not cost us more than we are paying today? Because I would be all for a better healthcare and insurance system... but I am not willing to part with more of my money than I currently do.