- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Much to the annoyance of leftist pushing single payer healthcare. the CBO tells the truth where the leftist have lied.
the CBO did a minor score of their "medicare for all"
CBO: Medicare for All gives 'many more' coverage but 'potentially disruptive' | TheHill
a single-payer health care system would result in “many more” people with health insurance but would also be “potentially disruptive” and increase government control.
If more people gained coverage while payment rates to doctors and hospitals went down, Hadley said, there could be a lack of supply of health care causing “increased wait times and problems with access to care.” (yep a 40% cut in payments to what they are making now. since no one on here would work for 40% less why would doctors or hospitals?)
Republicans pressed the CBO officials for a cost estimate of the proposal, a crucial figure, but Hadley replied that “we don’t have an estimate yet,” because how the system is designed would greatly affect the cost. (The reason there is no cost estimate is that according to other sources leftist told them not to calculate it)
why is that?
Sally Pipes: '''Medicare-for-all''' is worse than the CBO says it is (much worse) | Fox News
The CBO suggested that a putative single-payer system could be funded by a combination of premiums, out-of-pocket payments, and taxes.
(wait i thought it was free? now i have to pay premiums, out of pocket costs and higher taxes?)
According to Emory University health economist Kenneth Thorpe, more than 70 percent of working Americans who have private insurance would wind up paying more for health care under a version of "Medicare-for-all" very similar to the one Sanders has introduced in the Senate. (wait i thought it was to cost me less not more?) ol the lies leftist tell.
As CBO Deputy Director Mark Hadley mentioned in this week's hearing, the report found that the elimination of cost-sharing would increase usage of health services -- and thereby drive up government spending even further. That could necessitate additional taxes. (wait? even more taxes)
As the CBO puts it, "Studies have found that increases in provider payment rates lead to a greater supply of medical care, whereas decreases in payment rates lead to a lower supply."
"Medicare-for-all", of course, envisions huge pay cuts for doctors and hospitals. It would reimburse doctors and hospitals at Medicare's rates, which are 40 percent less than those paid by private insurers. The CBO concludes that "such a reduction in provider payment rates would probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care."
finally someone else agree's to the facts not the emotion rants of leftist.
sorry folks after years and years of saying how sucky government healthcare will be someone finally
had the balls to confirm it.
the CBO did a minor score of their "medicare for all"
CBO: Medicare for All gives 'many more' coverage but 'potentially disruptive' | TheHill
a single-payer health care system would result in “many more” people with health insurance but would also be “potentially disruptive” and increase government control.
If more people gained coverage while payment rates to doctors and hospitals went down, Hadley said, there could be a lack of supply of health care causing “increased wait times and problems with access to care.” (yep a 40% cut in payments to what they are making now. since no one on here would work for 40% less why would doctors or hospitals?)
Republicans pressed the CBO officials for a cost estimate of the proposal, a crucial figure, but Hadley replied that “we don’t have an estimate yet,” because how the system is designed would greatly affect the cost. (The reason there is no cost estimate is that according to other sources leftist told them not to calculate it)
why is that?
Sally Pipes: '''Medicare-for-all''' is worse than the CBO says it is (much worse) | Fox News
The CBO suggested that a putative single-payer system could be funded by a combination of premiums, out-of-pocket payments, and taxes.
(wait i thought it was free? now i have to pay premiums, out of pocket costs and higher taxes?)
According to Emory University health economist Kenneth Thorpe, more than 70 percent of working Americans who have private insurance would wind up paying more for health care under a version of "Medicare-for-all" very similar to the one Sanders has introduced in the Senate. (wait i thought it was to cost me less not more?) ol the lies leftist tell.
As CBO Deputy Director Mark Hadley mentioned in this week's hearing, the report found that the elimination of cost-sharing would increase usage of health services -- and thereby drive up government spending even further. That could necessitate additional taxes. (wait? even more taxes)
As the CBO puts it, "Studies have found that increases in provider payment rates lead to a greater supply of medical care, whereas decreases in payment rates lead to a lower supply."
"Medicare-for-all", of course, envisions huge pay cuts for doctors and hospitals. It would reimburse doctors and hospitals at Medicare's rates, which are 40 percent less than those paid by private insurers. The CBO concludes that "such a reduction in provider payment rates would probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care."
finally someone else agree's to the facts not the emotion rants of leftist.
sorry folks after years and years of saying how sucky government healthcare will be someone finally
had the balls to confirm it.