CBO finally tells the Truth of Medicare for all

[ludin]

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.

 

[Deuce]

The solution to long wait times for medical care is more doctors, not fewer ****ing patients.

 

[ludin]

The solution to long wait times for medical care is more doctors, not fewer ****ing patients.

sorry not going to get people into the medical field paying them less money.
not worth my time.

if i was a doctor and you told me that i was going to make 40% less i would tell you go stuff it.
you wouldn't work for 40% less why should a doctor?

 

[Cardinal]

Well, yeah. Switching over from one system to another is going to be potentially disruptive. The PPCA was rolled out kind of terribly in the first year, but I don't think many people are angry about protections for pre-existing conditions and the rest of the ten essential benefits.

In any case, single payer in and of itself isn't really practical, and the best models we have to emulate use a mixture of single and private insurance providers.

 

[TrueScotsman]

I don't think the full Medicare for all system will work as the progressives plan it. The healthcare industry is a capitalist industry like any other, designed to operate off of profits. I think we need something that will be truly progressive in that it will have many transitional phases to use what works and get rid of what doesn't, with the objective of expanding coverage to all the population while not disrupting the industry too much.

The Bernie Medicare For All package will underpay doctors for care in a time when doctors are desperately needed.

However, I will say that if a more extreme policy like this gets passed then it will be because Republicans didn't work with Democrats to progressively reform healthcare.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Seems someone in the CBO has heard of supply and demand and its relationship with price.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think the full Medicare for all system will work as the progressives plan it. The healthcare industry is a capitalist industry like any other, designed to operate off of profits. I think we need something that will be truly progressive in that it will have many transitional phases to use what works and get rid of what doesn't, with the objective of expanding coverage to all the population while not disrupting the industry too much.

The Bernie Medicare For All package will underpay doctors for care in a time when doctors are desperately needed.

However, I will say that if a more extreme policy like this gets passed then it will be because Republicans didn't work with Democrats to progressively reform healthcare.

"while not disrupting the industry too much"

Fact is, the only way to avoid disrupting the industry is for the government to totally take over the industry. Make every healthcare business, every healthcare employee, every health insurance company and their employees become government employees. Make them all conform to government rules. Take away the profit motive.

But even if you do that, many of the problems identified by the CBO will still exist.

 

[ludin]

"while not disrupting the industry too much"

Fact is, the only way to avoid disrupting the industry is for the government to totally take over the industry. Make every healthcare business, every healthcare employee, every health insurance company and their employees become government employees. Make them all conform to government rules. Take away the profit motive.

But even if you do that, many of the problems identified by the CBO will still exist.

such as who is going to research new drugs etc ...

we need a full market drive medical system. when you have a full open market driven medical system then you get the best results with lower costs and with better quality.

look at laser eye surgery. when it came out it was almost 5k an eye.
now you can get it done for 500 an eye.

 

[Fenton]

The solution to long wait times for medical care is more doctors, not fewer ****ing patients.

Lol !

So you're going to attract more Doctor's and health professionals by offering them Medicare reimbursement rates ?
Because that's what Sanders want to do. No private system, no insurers and the Govt dictates income and reimbursements.

 

[TrueScotsman]

"while not disrupting the industry too much"

Fact is, the only way to avoid disrupting the industry is for the government to totally take over the industry. Make every healthcare business, every healthcare employee, every health insurance company and their employees become government employees. Make them all conform to government rules. Take away the profit motive.

But even if you do that, many of the problems identified by the CBO will still exist.

I agree, in a perfect world that would be the ideal. Seeing as we have a legacy capitalist system, we should work to make improvements and expansions with that in mind.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree, in a perfect world that would be the ideal. Seeing as we have a legacy capitalist system, we should work to make improvements and expansions with that in mind.

The devil is in the details...and the unintended consequences...of those "improvements and expansions" and resisting the urge to increase control of the industry to the point that the various companies just cannot keep things cost effective.

The watchword should be...less is better than more.

 

[Deuce]

sorry not going to get people into the medical field paying them less money.
not worth my time.

if i was a doctor and you told me that i was going to make 40% less i would tell you go stuff it.
you wouldn't work for 40% less why should a doctor?

You're taking it as some kind of law of physics that doctor pay would decrease by 40%

Lots of nations have universal healthcare, and most of them have shorter waiting times than we do.

 

[sangha]

90% of all doctors accept Medicare so obviously they are not going to quit because they have to accept Medicare

But the ones who are truly upset about the reduction in income will be free to become baristas at the local Starbucks

 

[ludin]

You're taking it as some kind of law of physics that doctor pay would decrease by 40%

Lots of nations have universal healthcare, and most of them have shorter waiting times than we do.

if you would have read the OP you would know what you are talking about.
so i will make this simple for you.

medicare payments are 40% less than normal insurance payments.
so if you won't work for 40% less then why should they?

the CBO says that you are not correct.

about 10-15 days or so to see a specialist in the US depending on where you live.
canada wait times is 21 weeks for a specialist.
for france.

It's a different story for specialists, for example the average waiting time to see a pediatrician is is three weeks and it's the same waiting time for a radiologist.

The average time to see a dentist is one month and for a gynecologist it's six weeks. For anyone with heart issues you might have to wait up to 50 days to see a cardiologist, two months for a dermatologist and up to 80 days for an ophthalmologist.

on par with the US in some area's worse than others.
so facts disprove what you are saying.

 

[Deuce]

if you would have read the OP you would know what you are talking about.
so i will make this simple for you.

medicare payments are 40% less than normal insurance payments.
so if you won't work for 40% less then why should they?

the CBO says that you are not correct.

about 10-15 days or so to see a specialist in the US depending on where you live.
canada wait times is 21 weeks for a specialist.
for france.

It's a different story for specialists, for example the average waiting time to see a pediatrician is is three weeks and it's the same waiting time for a radiologist.

The average time to see a dentist is one month and for a gynecologist it's six weeks. For anyone with heart issues you might have to wait up to 50 days to see a cardiologist, two months for a dermatologist and up to 80 days for an ophthalmologist.

on par with the US in some area's worse than others.
so facts disprove what you are saying.

Weird that you haven't looked at waiting times in Germany or Sweden or Australia. It's always Canada or the UK that you folks look at. You also never account for the percentage of the US population that is simply left out in the cold. Gotta give at least a 10% bump to our wait times because at least that percentage of our population just doesn't go to the doctor because they can't afford it. (unless you're just a monster, which most Republicans are)

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Does anyone else understand why so many automotive assembly jobs went to Canada?
It's because even with their heavy unionization, Canadian workforces are still cheaper because of the single payer healthcare.

 

[nekrodev]

oh, hey, a vague statement about a system that isn't properly defined, and that completely ignores the fact that every other developed country on the planet manages it in one way or another. figure it the **** out.

 

[Helix]

it will work here like it works in other first world countries. it won't be perfect, but it will be better than the hodgepodge system that we currently have.

 

[ludin]

Weird that you haven't looked at waiting times in Germany or Sweden or Australia. It's always Canada or the UK that you folks look at. You also never account for the percentage of the US population that is simply left out in the cold. Gotta give at least a 10% bump to our wait times because at least that percentage of our population just doesn't go to the doctor because they can't afford it. (unless you're just a monster, which most Republicans are)

it is weird that i am not going to go look at every country.
i found examples that proved you WRONG.
that is all that matters. you claim was not correct.

there are countries that have UHC that are in fact worse than the US.
take cuba for example where you might not even be able to see a doctor or get medication
because they don't have it.

even germany for a specialist at minimum is like 10 days. but it can be more depending on where you are at
etc ...

 

[ludin]

Does anyone else understand why so many automotive assembly jobs went to Canada?
It's because even with their heavy unionization, Canadian workforces are still cheaper because of the single payer healthcare.

proof.

 

[Deuce]

it is weird that i am not going to go look at every country.
i found examples that proved you WRONG.
that is all that matters. you claim was not correct.

there are countries that have UHC that are in fact worse than the US.
take cuba for example where you might not even be able to see a doctor or get medication
because they don't have it.

even germany for a specialist at minimum is like 10 days. but it can be more depending on where you are at
etc ...

You can't use "examples" to prove me wrong because I'm not claiming EVERY country has shorter wait times.

 

[ludin]

You can't use "examples" to prove me wrong because I'm not claiming EVERY country has shorter wait times.

and i quote you directly
"Lots of nations have universal healthcare, and most of them have shorter waiting times than we do."

so you have really never proved this to be correct.
I have also proved that there are countries that have UHC that are in fact
not shorter than the US.

so you have not really defined your argument or proved it.
however we are getting away from the main argument in the OP.

the CBO has confirmed everything that we already knew about UHC systems
more expensive.
less doctors
less quality care
and longer wait times.

 

[JasperL]

the CBO has confirmed everything that we already knew about UHC systems
more expensive.
less doctors
less quality care
and longer wait times.

Most UHC countries have more, not fewer, doctors. There's no evidence that quality of care is lower. We do a lot of things well, like high end specialty care, and many things poorly like a lot of mundane things that address chronic conditions, but that are key to overall quality. And as you admit, wait times vary by country. It helps with wait times in many fields that UHC systems have more doctors. It helps our numbers that many people have a wait time of forever because without insurance they don't get on the list at all.

And the CBO report was about single payer, which is different than UHC. It's the same mistake, IMO, that many on the left are making - substituting one form of UHC as the goal instead of UHC. Fact is single payer is the rare EXCEPTION for UHC systems around the world - basically the UK and Canada in the advanced world to my knowledge. Everyone else has hybrid, public/private, many payers. Nearly all have more in common with the ACA than M4A.

 

[ludin]

Most UHC countries have more, not fewer, doctors. There's no evidence that quality of care is lower. We do a lot of things well, like high end specialty care, and many things poorly like a lot of mundane things that address chronic conditions, but that are key to overall quality. And as you admit, wait times vary by country. It helps with wait times in many fields that UHC systems have more doctors. It helps our numbers that many people have a wait time of forever because without insurance they don't get on the list at all.

most doctors in those countries work for the state. they are no private individuals with their own practices.
they get paid a salary determined by the state on what they should make.

I don't think i have ever argued that our system doesn't need work but so far there is no evidence that a UHC will work better.

And the CBO report was about single payer, which is different than UHC. It's the same mistake, IMO, that many on the left are making - substituting one form of UHC as the goal instead of UHC. Fact is single payer is the rare EXCEPTION for UHC systems around the world - basically the UK and Canada in the advanced world to my knowledge. Everyone else has hybrid, public/private, many payers. Nearly all have more in common with the ACA than M4A.

Facts are facts. single payer or whatever you want to call it is more expensive.
you get less quality care
and longer wait times.

not to mention your doctor probably won't take it because who is going to work for 40% less?
not me.

 

[JasperL]

most doctors in those countries work for the state. they are no private individuals with their own practices.
they get paid a salary determined by the state on what they should make.

I don't think i have ever argued that our system doesn't need work but so far there is no evidence that a UHC will work better.

Which countries? It varies tremendously from country to country. Just for example, most doctors in France are self employed, and contract with hospitals and other providers same as in the U.S.

Facts are facts. single payer or whatever you want to call it is more expensive.
you get less quality care
and longer wait times.

OK, show me some facts. You'll find they vary... although I've never seen an analysis that doesn't find the U.S. the most expensive system in the world BY FAR.

not to mention your doctor probably won't take it because who is going to work for 40% less?
not me.

I haven't argued we should reduce payments by 40%, am opposed to M4A, and haven't said what a plan I don't favor will do to physician supply because I don't know the answer. It's a fact that somehow the entire rest of the world gets quality care and pays their doctors a lot less than we do, so after adjustment I'm pretty sure we can get people to fill jobs paying well into 6 figures, even if fewer make 7 figures.