Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion[W:174]

[Greenbeard]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

Closer to England's per capita.

That isn’t even remotely feasible.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

Leaving the profession? Where do you think they will go? Will they just become carpenters? This is hilarious. They will take the rate given and they will continue to do their jobs and make a good living just like they do in Canada. LOL[/QUOTE Laugh all you want, it's happening.

I will laugh. So they are becoming carpenters? LOL

 

[roughdraft274]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

I don't see a bolded line. But I went back over the entire post and don't see where I misinterpreted what you were saying. You offered corner cases and workarounds not evident to most consumers. For instance, yes, a person could refrain from getting an ACA approved plan and just pay the fine; but, IMHO most people follow the law.

*Clipped for 5000 character limit*

My apologies, I forgot to go back and put the line in bold, but it was the very beginning line about "ignoring" the law. I discussed in my post exactly how you interpreted my words incorrectly.

Also, I didn't offer "work arounds". I explained in plain english what the law was. You pay a tax for not getting health insurance. If that encourages some people to buy insurance just to "comply" then so be it. It's very, very likely a good thing for them.

I agree that there wasn't enough done in Obamacare to lower actual costs. But that's a reality of this political environment and a reality of the limitations of our government. Any reductions in price would by in large have to come out of one of the following areas:

1. Medical staff pay
2. Billing/insurance staff pay
3. Medical equipment cost
4. Drug cost
5. Stop procedures that are deemed "un-required" by some agency somewhere.
6. Stop drug prescriptions that are deemed "un-required" by some agency somewhere.
and probably a few others I forget.


Any reduction to the above in even the slightest manner would have resulted in chaos politically. If you somehow try to crack down on doctors performing expensive scans because someone has a stiff neck then that's a death panel or some other non-sense. Not to mention it would require a vast amount of government bureaucracy to even try to hinder procedures like that, which would likely cost more than any savings that they could scrounge up. If you reduce drug prices, people bitch that you are stopping "innovation". If you reduce medical staff pay, then you are punishing doctors who put in a long education for a good paying job. There is no winning scenario.

The common conservative critique is that medical bills would be lowered if it were a completely capitalist enterprise. Get rid of insurance, get rid of subsidies, force people to whip out cold hard cash every time they get any procedure, visit any doctor etc and we would have lower costs because people would require it due to the more transparent costs. The problem with this is that it leaves anyone who can't afford medical care to be sick and helpless. Along with that, the throngs of money that we'd all save on premiums would be wasted by most people so that when a medical emergency actually occurred they wouldn't have the money to pay for it. It would be chaos and couldn't last very long.

The more innovative and impressive our medical care becomes the more expensive and convoluted it will be. It's essentially a tautology to an extent. We can't go back to the days where each city had a doctor or two and everyone paid the doctor for each visit. That doctor provided the bare essentials. If we expect a society where doctors are extremely well trained and very well paid, everything requires a specialist, hospitals are state of the art and aren't busy, doctors can order any procedure they want out of an over abundance of caution etc. then we will have to pay out the ass for it. Period, end of story. Since that is so extremely hard to put a dent in, Obamacare attempted to fix how we pay for it. Rather than letting people get sick, going to the ER and skipping on the bill, now those people get help to pay for insurance, get preventative care that hopefully stops them from being as sick or having very expensive problems that could have been sorted out cheaply if they'd seen a doctor regularly etc.

The most impressive thing about Obamacare is hat the argument has been going on this long and the entire time, while it was being passed and currently, I've only heard people poke holes in it. I've yet to see anyone come up with a better system that would provide better care, reduce costs etc.

 

[Taylor]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

a fraction of what we are paying, as other first world nations do. also, health insurance should not be tied to specific employment.

But any of those systems, if implemented here, would likely cost a lot more - one reason being that we put a lot more stress on our bodies. Your graph tells us almost nothing about what we should be paying. It's such a gross oversimplification of the issue that it may as well have been drawn in crayon.

 

[Helix]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

But any of those systems, if implemented here, would likely cost a lot more - one reason being that we put a lot more stress on our bodies. Your graph tells us almost nothing about what we should be paying. It's such a gross oversimplification of the issue that it may as well have been drawn in crayon.

i've already heard that one, and i don't agree. single payer will have the same negotiating power here that it has everywhere else.

 

[Taylor]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

i've already heard that one, and i don't agree. single payer will have the same negotiating power here that it has everywhere else.

It has nothing to do with negotiating power. It simply costs more money to treat people who are obese and overworked than those who are much healthier to begin with.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

sure, informed Americans will.

View attachment 67237224

they'll be paying less for health care that isn't tied to their jobs and which works more efficiently. there will always be those who are afraid of change because they believe propaganda, though. those people will just have to be outvoted in enough consecutive elections.

healthcare expenses per capita mean absolutely nothing when other countries bury the cost of their healthcare in other taxes. Is that what you want in this country? Bet the majority don't, only those who are incapable of taking care of their own personal responsibility issues and those who have employer funded healthcare which will go by the wayside if we get this dumbass Sanders program. Why is it you have a problem understanding how inefficient the federal bureaucracy is?

 

[Helix]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

It has nothing to do with negotiating power. It simply costs more money to treat people who are obese and overworked than those who are much healthier to begin with.

the cost difference isn't only because some people are obese. we'd be hard pressed to design a more inefficient and overpriced system even if we wanted to.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

i'm quite happy to post graphs which prove that we're overpaying and that your position is incorrect.

View attachment 67237225

something that they don't want to do? please. the uninsured still get treatment because they have to. they do it at the damned emergency room, the dumbest possible way to provide primary care, and you and i pay for it through expensive service and high premiums. it's time to vote out the obstacles and address the problem.

Stop with the leftwing bull**** and post the total cost of European Healthcare and the hidden taxes that you want to ignore

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

There is no alternative to fixing the healthcare system, to the making it more efficient and also rationing care better than we do now.

 

[Taylor]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

the cost difference isn't only because some people are obese.

I agree 100% there are many factors, which is why graphs like the one you posted that compare apples to oranges tell us nothing.

 

[Helix]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

healthcare expenses per capita mean absolutely nothing when other countries bury the cost of their healthcare in other taxes. Is that what you want in this country? Bet the majority don't, only those who are incapable of taking care of their own personal responsibility issues and those who have employer funded healthcare which will go by the wayside if we get this dumbass Sanders program. Why is it you have a problem understanding how inefficient the federal bureaucracy is?

yes, i support single payer for the US even though it will could adversely affect me at work. if it does, i'll get a different job, and another advantage will be that i won't have to pay a grand a month to COBRA in between. as for the taxes, i doubt that they'll even be as much as i'm paying for premiums to a for profit company. they certainly won't be as much as i'm paying in deductibles and for inflated cost of care.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

i've already heard that one, and i don't agree. single payer will have the same negotiating power here that it has everywhere else.

US laws are a lot difference as is the requirements to meet FDA standards as well as completion of medical school as well as meeting federal govt. standards for drugs and medication. your simplicity point of view is based mostly on total ignorance of what the other countries actually post and the hidden taxes they pay that aren't being reported. There is no way this country will support this ideology and that is why Obama lost the House in 10-12, the Congress in 14-16 and if you continue to support this ideology Democrats won't get the votes of a third party.

 

[Helix]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

I agree 100% there are many factors, which is why graphs like the one you posted that compare apples to oranges tell us nothing.

the chart tells us more than "nothing." it tells us that our system is ridiculously expensive and that we need to do something about it.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

yes, i support single payer for the US even though it will could adversely affect me at work. if it does, i'll get a different job, and another advantage will be that i won't have to pay a grand a month to COBRA in between. as for the taxes, i doubt that they'll even be as much as i'm paying for premiums to a for profit company. they certainly won't be as much as i'm paying in deductibles and for inflated cost of care.

That's because you always want someone else to pay for your healthcare and ignore the word incentive and how that impacts our doctors and medical profession. You buy what you are told but pay no attention to the hidden taxes that fund European healthcare and believe that the U.S. Taxpayers will pay additional taxes on top of their Medicare taxes now to take care of another 40 million Americans. You are very naive

 

[Helix]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

US laws are a lot difference as is the requirements to meet FDA standards as well as completion of medical school as well as meeting federal govt. standards for drugs and medication. your simplicity point of view is based mostly on total ignorance of what the other countries actually post and the hidden taxes they pay that aren't being reported. There is no way this country will support this ideology and that is why Obama lost the House in 10-12, the Congress in 14-16 and if you continue to support this ideology Democrats won't get the votes of a third party.

every other first world country supports a more efficient and affordable health care system. i think you underestimate Americans. they can support a better healthcare system, too.

 

[Helix]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

That's because you always want someone else to pay for your healthcare and ignore the word incentive and how that impacts our doctors and medical profession. You buy what you are told but pay no attention to the hidden taxes that fund European healthcare and believe that the U.S. Taxpayers will pay additional taxes on top of their Medicare taxes now to take care of another 40 million Americans. You are very naive

i'm already paying for the uninsured to get primary care at emergency rooms, and so are you. i'll take single payer, thanks. it works everywhere else. we're smart enough to make it work here, too.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

My apologies, I forgot to go back and put the line in bold, but it was the very beginning line about "ignoring" the law. I discussed in my post exactly how you interpreted my words incorrectly.

Also, I didn't offer "work arounds". I explained in plain english what the law was. You pay a tax for not getting health insurance. If that encourages some people to buy insurance just to "comply" then so be it. It's very, very likely a good thing for them.

I agree that there wasn't enough done in Obamacare to lower actual costs. But that's a reality of this political environment and a reality of the limitations of our government. Any reductions in price would by in large have to come out of one of the following areas:

1. Medical staff pay
2. Billing/insurance staff pay
3. Medical equipment cost
4. Drug cost
5. Stop procedures that are deemed "un-required" by some agency somewhere.
6. Stop drug prescriptions that are deemed "un-required" by some agency somewhere.
and probably a few others I forget.


Any reduction to the above in even the slightest manner would have resulted in chaos politically. If you somehow try to crack down on doctors performing expensive scans because someone has a stiff neck then that's a death panel or some other non-sense. Not to mention it would require a vast amount of government bureaucracy to even try to hinder procedures like that, which would likely cost more than any savings that they could scrounge up. If you reduce drug prices, people bitch that you are stopping "innovation". If you reduce medical staff pay, then you are punishing doctors who put in a long education for a good paying job. There is no winning scenario.

The common conservative critique is that medical bills would be lowered if it were a completely capitalist enterprise. Get rid of insurance, get rid of subsidies, force people to whip out cold hard cash every time they get any procedure, visit any doctor etc and we would have lower costs because people would require it due to the more transparent costs. The problem with this is that it leaves anyone who can't afford medical care to be sick and helpless. Along with that, the throngs of money that we'd all save on premiums would be wasted by most people so that when a medical emergency actually occurred they wouldn't have the money to pay for it. It would be chaos and couldn't last very long.

The more innovative and impressive our medical care becomes the more expensive and convoluted it will be. It's essentially a tautology to an extent. We can't go back to the days where each city had a doctor or two and everyone paid the doctor for each visit. That doctor provided the bare essentials. If we expect a society where doctors are extremely well trained and very well paid, everything requires a specialist, hospitals are state of the art and aren't busy, doctors can order any procedure they want out of an over abundance of caution etc. then we will have to pay out the ass for it. Period, end of story. Since that is so extremely hard to put a dent in, Obamacare attempted to fix how we pay for it. Rather than letting people get sick, going to the ER and skipping on the bill, now those people get help to pay for insurance, get preventative care that hopefully stops them from being as sick or having very expensive problems that could have been sorted out cheaply if they'd seen a doctor regularly etc.

The most impressive thing about Obamacare is hat the argument has been going on this long and the entire time, while it was being passed and currently, I've only heard people poke holes in it. I've yet to see anyone come up with a better system that would provide better care, reduce costs etc.

OK, this post is far too long to reply to. System limits maximum characters to 5000

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

The common conservative critique is that medical bills would be lowered if it were a completely capitalist enterprise. Get rid of insurance, get rid of subsidies, force people to whip out cold hard cash every time they get any procedure, visit any doctor etc and we would have lower costs because people would require it due to the more transparent costs. The problem with this is that it leaves anyone who can't afford medical care to be sick and helpless. Along with that, the throngs of money that we'd all save on premiums would be wasted by most people so that when a medical emergency actually occurred they wouldn't have the money to pay for it. It would be chaos and couldn't last very long.

I've been conservative/libertarian for decades and I can say quite honestly I've never seen a conservative EVER say anything like this.

 

[trixare4kids]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

No, I don't have Obamacare. I pay cash for my healthcare. Due to changes Trump made, cancer disqualifies me from any policy except one more expensive than my treatment.

Why would you be disqualified?

With the exception of the mandate, pre-existing rules have not changed...
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html

 

[Deuce]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

That is also the reason that we got PPACA instead of UHC with only demorat support. Many (likely most) voters have medical care insurance that they are quite happy with provided by their employers and simply do not trust the federal government to do better..

Most people are "happy" with their health insurance because they've never had to really use it. :shrug:

 

[Greenbeard]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

Why would you be disqualified?

With the exception of the mandate, pre-existing rules have not changed...
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html

Right, his administration is still fighting in court to bring back pre-existing condition exclusions.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

There is no alternative to fixing the healthcare system, to the making it more efficient and also rationing care better than we do now.

Sure there is

 

[Conservative]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

every other first world country supports a more efficient and affordable health care system. i think you underestimate Americans. they can support a better healthcare system, too.

that continues to be your opinion but there is no real proof of that as the entire cost of healthcare is ignored and not posted. Too many hidden taxes that go towards the cost of healthcare that you want to ignore. better? don't think so or foreigners wouldn't come here for treatment

 

[Conservative]

Re: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

i'm already paying for the uninsured to get primary care at emergency rooms, and so are you. i'll take single payer, thanks. it works everywhere else. we're smart enough to make it work here, too.

Only in your state, this isn't a federal taxpayer responsibility.