Medicare For All?

[Dr.Sack]

Every worker in the U.S. pays 1.45% into Medicare.

 

Medicare polls at 78% positive favorability.

 

Over 60% of Americans now support Medicare For All.

 

The median American household income is $56,516. That's $820 a year already to Medicare.

 

That same household is paying $450 a month in employer sponsor insurance, or $5,400 a year while their employer pays the other half. These costs are before prescription drugs, doctor visits, copays, or deductibles. That's $5,850 before additional medical expenses. Healthcare Savings Accounts, are you F'ing kidding the average Joe The Plumber?

 

If we went to Medicare For All at 5% that family would pay $2,750 with no other expenses. And their employers would save on the the cost of administering & paying for the other half of their employee healthcare.

 

This is a no brainer and would make American business more competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. Don't fall into the tired socialist cliches. Medicare For All is the answer.

[DC Tom]

Every worker in the U.S. pays 1.45% into Medicare.

 

Medicare polls at 78% positive favorability.

 

Over 60% of Americans now support Medicare For All.

 

The median American household income is $56,516. That's $820 a year already to Medicare.

 

That same household is paying $450 a month in employer sponsor insurance, or $5,400 a year while their employer pays the other half. These costs are before prescription drugs, doctor visits, copays, or deductibles. That's $5,850 before additional medical expenses. Healthcare Savings Accounts, are you F'ing kidding the average Joe The Plumber?

 

If we went to Medicare For All at 5% that family would pay $2,750 with no other expenses. And their employers would save on the the cost of administering & paying for the other half of their employee healthcare.

 

This is a no brainer and would make American business more competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. Don't fall into the tired socialist cliches. Medicare For All is the answer.

 

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.11.

[Dr.Sack]

 

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.11.

D.C. Tom, resorting to name calling instead of debating on the merits of facts since 1996.

 

But I'll ask that DC Tom two questions.

 

Question 1, do you use "socialist" programs Social Security & Medicare? If yes, why?

 

Question 2, name one country where a free market Healthcare system exists?

[grinreaper]

Every worker in the U.S. pays 1.45% into Medicare.

 

Medicare polls at 78% positive favorability.

 

Over 60% of Americans now support Medicare For All.

 

The median American household income is $56,516. That's $820 a year already to Medicare.

 

That same household is paying $450 a month in employer sponsor insurance, or $5,400 a year while their employer pays the other half. These costs are before prescription drugs, doctor visits, copays, or deductibles. That's $5,850 before additional medical expenses. Healthcare Savings Accounts, are you F'ing kidding the average Joe The Plumber?

 

If we went to Medicare For All at 5% that family would pay $2,750 with no other expenses. And their employers would save on the the cost of administering & paying for the other half of their employee healthcare.

 

This is a no brainer and would make American business more competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. Don't fall into the tired socialist cliches. Medicare For All is the answer.

Have you given any thought about why some doctors will not accept Medicare patients? Or why some doctors limit Medicare patients? Why is that? Do you realize that they need the people that pay full retail to make up for the people on Medicare/Medicaid that don't even pay wholesale?

[Dr.Sack]

Have you given any thought about why some doctors will not accept Medicare patients? Or why some doctors limit Medicare patients? Why is that? Do you realize that they need the people that pay full retail to make up for the people on Medicare/Medicaid that don't even pay wholesale?

 

Most doctors accept Medicare. 93% to be precise. Apparently 7% of doctors can afford to be more selective in their clientele. I would assume that would continue after implementation of a universal healthcare system.

 

http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/primary-care-physicians-accepting-medicare-a-snapshot/

Edited August 10, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[Dr.Sack]

 

Perhaps we could reallocate some of this defense spending?

Edited August 10, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[4merper4mer]

Every worker in the U.S. pays 1.45% into Medicare.

Medicare polls at 78% positive favorability.

Over 60% of Americans now support Medicare For All.

The median American household income is $56,516. That's $820 a year already to Medicare.

That same household is paying $450 a month in employer sponsor insurance, or $5,400 a year while their employer pays the other half. These costs are before prescription drugs, doctor visits, copays, or deductibles. That's $5,850 before additional medical expenses. Healthcare Savings Accounts, are you F'ing kidding the average Joe The Plumber?

If we went to Medicare For All at 5% that family would pay $2,750 with no other expenses. And their employers would save on the the cost of administering & paying for the other half of their employee healthcare.

This is a no brainer and would make American business more competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. Don't fall into the tired socialist cliches. Medicare For All is the answer.

Ponzi schemes only work if everyone pays but far fewer collect.

[grinreaper]

 

Perhaps we could reallocate some of this defense spending?

Conversation closed. Tom was right. You are an idiot.

Edited August 10, 2017 by grinreaper

[Doc Brown]

 

Perhaps we could reallocate some of this defense spending?

There are many reasons (too many I care to explain) that it is absolutely essential we spend that much on our defense and some would argue more. Also, a better graph would be the % of our GDP we spend on defense compared to other countries as that graph is misleading due to our population % compared to others on that graph. I'm all for looking into how our defense spending is distributed to cut down on wasteful spending, but I can't stress enough how important it is to maintain the strongest military and defense system on this planet.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Doc Brown

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There are many reasons (too many I care to explain) that it is absolutely essential we spend that much on our defense and some would argue more. Also, a better graph would be the % of our GDP we spend on defense compared to other countries as that graph is misleading due to our population % compared to others on that graph. I'm all for looking into how our defense spending is distributed to cut down on wasteful spending, but I can't stress enough how important it is to maintain the strongest military and defense system on this planet.

 

Doc...you're seriously one of the better, brighter liberal posters we've had in a while.

 

Keep it up.

 

[B-Large]

Have you given any thought about why some doctors will not accept Medicare patients? Or why some doctors limit Medicare patients? Why is that? Do you realize that they need the people that pay full retail to make up for the people on Medicare/Medicaid that don't even pay wholesale?

Private insurance contracts place Medicare rate plus a percentage above. Nobody plays full list charges in healthcare. We close to Medicare front time to time because the patients are often veryvtime consuming, and resource heavy- yes the reimbursement is lower, but it's more nuanced than justvdollars and cents.

[DC Tom]

D.C. Tom, resorting to name calling instead of debating on the merits of facts since 1996.

But I'll ask that DC Tom two questions.

Question 1, do you use "socialist" programs Social Security & Medicare? If yes, why?

Question 2, name one country where a free market Healthcare system exists?

You presented no facts to debate. That's what makes you an idiot.

[B-Large]

I like the idea of a single risk pool for all citizens, coupled with some sort off individual annual deductible and HSA. The shell game of subsidizing expensive private individual insurance plans hopefully is coming to an end.

[Nanker]

Private insurance contracts place Medicare rate plus a percentage above. Nobody plays full list charges in healthcare. We close to Medicare front time to time because the patients are often veryvtime consuming, and resource heavy- yes the reimbursement is lower, but it's more nuanced than justvdollars and cents.

Oh, yes they do. Worker's Comp and accident insurers do. They pay bust-out-retail and the providers set their "list price" accordingly. Everyone else gets a discount off of that whether it's from a group plan, or individually insured. Of course, the indigent get their health care for free.

 

Doc...you're seriously one of the better, brighter liberal posters we've had in a while.

 

Keep it up.

 

Agreed, though I suspect Doc's been around here a lot longer under a different nom de plume.

I like the idea of a single risk pool for all citizens, coupled with some sort off individual annual deductible and HSA. The shell game of subsidizing expensive private individual insurance plans hopefully is coming to an end.

Yes. Individual insurance policies are horrible. Their rates are grossly high. That's what the ACA was supposed to be centered around - putting all those individuals into some kind of a "Group" so the insurers could provide coverage at better rates. Of course, the fact that men had to have OBGYN visits covered and seniors paying for birth control, etc., (because... "fair") just helped sink that ship down the toilet of bad ideas.

[B-Man]

 

Why Sanders’ Medicare-For-All Will Fail

Dr. Deane Waldman

 

Democrat Senator: You Know, Single-Payer Really Isn’t The Best Option

ED MORRISSEY

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/09/dem-senator-know-single-payer-really-isnt-best-option/

 

[ALF]

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/bernie-sanders-mfa?source=em170809-full

 

Will introduce Medicare for all

 

Now let me be totally clear: if Republicans try again to repeal Obamacare, we will fight them with everything we have. But our ultimate goal is to understand that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, health care must be a right, not a privilege, for every man, woman and child.

That is why, in just a few weeks, I am going to introduce a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care bill in the United States Senate. It is time to wage a moral and political war against a dysfunctional health care system in this country. Say you’re with me:

Edited August 10, 2017 by ALF

[Tiberius]

There are many reasons (too many I care to explain) that it is absolutely essential we spend that much on our defense and some would argue more. Also, a better graph would be the % of our GDP we spend on defense compared to other countries as that graph is misleading due to our population % compared to others on that graph. I'm all for looking into how our defense spending is distributed to cut down on wasteful spending, but I can't stress enough how important it is to maintain the strongest military and defense system on this planet.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you on spending, but why bring up populations %?

[Chef Jim]

 

Doc...you're seriously one of the better, brighter liberal posters we've had in a while.

 

Keep it up.

 

I'm not sure he's a liberal. I think he was when he got here but now? Not so much.

You presented no facts to debate. That's what makes you an idiot.

Liberals rarely do. It's mostly emotional debate and you can't argue with hysterics.

[grinreaper]

 

Most doctors accept Medicare. 93% to be precise. Apparently 7% of doctors can afford to be more selective in their clientele. I would assume that would continue after implementation of a universal healthcare system.

 

http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/primary-care-physicians-accepting-medicare-a-snapshot/

Doctors accept some Medicare patients. Sort of like some lawyers will do some pro bono work. Drs. can't survive if all their patients are on Medicare just as lawyers couldn't survive if all their clients were pro bono.

[Dr.Sack]

You presented no facts to debate. That's what makes you an idiot.

You are an idiot because you have one line of attack. That means you are an idiot.

Doctors accept some Medicare patients. Sort of like some lawyers will do some pro bono work. Drs. can't survive if all their patients are on Medicare just as lawyers couldn't survive if all their clients were pro bono.

Physicians accept 93% of Medicare patients, 94% of private insurance. Did you click the link?

[Magox]

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/bernie-sanders-mfa?source=em170809-full

 

Will introduce Medicare for all

 

Now let me be totally clear: if Republicans try again to repeal Obamacare, we will fight them with everything we have. But our ultimate goal is to understand that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, health care must be a right, not a privilege, for every man, woman and child.

 

That is why, in just a few weeks, I am going to introduce a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care bill in the United States Senate. It is time to wage a moral and political war against a dysfunctional health care system in this country. Say you’re with me:

 

Maybe they should first try to pass it in Vermont and CA. first.

[DC Tom]

You are an idiot because you have one line of attack. That means you are an idiot.

 

Physicians accept 93% of Medicare patients, 94% of private insurance. Did you click the link?

 

For you, yes, I have only one "line of attack."

 

Because that's all that's needed. Everything you post can be accurately and concisely refuted by pointing out that you're an idiot.

[Dr.Sack]

I'm not disagreeing with you on spending, but why bring up populations %?

We spend $9,000 per capita on healthcare, and rank #27 in healthcare. We far outspend any other country by any measure when it comes to healthcare.

 

We still have 28,000,000 uncovered, and Trumpcare could have expanded that to 52,000,000.

 

We have to spend so much on military to "protect" our citizens, but when it comes to healthcare which I'd argue is more important, we just can't find the political will? Something is messed up in our nation.

[B-Man]

Did you read the link ?

 

You keep quoting the 93%

 

without adding the second part..........that only 72% of physicians are accepting new Medicare patients

 

 

 

nor is there a response to my link:

 

Why Sanders’ Medicare-For-All Will Fail

Dr. Deane Waldman

Edited August 10, 2017 by B-Man

[Dr.Sack]

 

For you, yes, I have only one "line of attack."

 

Because that's all that's needed. Everything you post can be accurately and concisely refuted by pointing out that you're an idiot.

Come on Tom. Be a man. Engage in some real debate. Throw some figures on here with links and case studies, showing us how a Libertarian free market approach would be so much better than universal healthcare. And while your at it, show me the country that has implemented this healthcare system.

[DC Tom]

Come on Tom. Be a man. Engage in some real debate. Throw some figures on here with links and case studies, showing us how a Libertarian free market approach would be so much better than universal healthcare. And while your at it, show me the country that has implemented this healthcare system.

 

Why am I supposed to argue a libertarian free-market approach? Why am I supposed to argue with you at all, when you're so ignorant that you throw out a random basket of numbers as some sort of ridiculous "proof" that a state-based medical payment system targeting a specific segment of the population can work as a federal medical services system for everyone?

 

Really, your first post in this thread demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of economics, finance, math, health care, Medicare, government, and the United States. Basically, the only thing you've demonstrated knowledge of is the QWERTY keyboard.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

We spend $9,000 per capita on healthcare, and rank #27 in healthcare. We far outspend any other country by any measure when it comes to healthcare.

 

We still have 28,000,000 uncovered, and Trumpcare could have expanded that to 52,000,000.

 

We have to spend so much on military to "protect" our citizens, but when it comes to healthcare which I'd argue is more important, we just can't find the political will? Something is messed up in our nation.

 

Yes, people who think like you are allowed to have opionons. That's what's messed up.

[GG]

You are an idiot because you have one line of attack. That means you are an idiot.

 

Physicians accept 93% of Medicare patients, 94% of private insurance. Did you click the link?

 

What does 93% acceptance mean?

[grinreaper]

You are an idiot because you have one line of attack. That means you are an idiot.

 

Physicians accept 93% of Medicare patients, 94% of private insurance. Did you click the link?

What's the rate for accepting new Medicare and Medicaid patients? Why is that different than accepting private insurance patients?

[Magox]

You are an idiot because you have one line of attack. That means you are an idiot.

 

Physicians accept 93% of Medicare patients, 94% of private insurance. Did you click the link?

 

The question is, did you read the entire article?

 

 

A majority of primary care physicians also say they are also taking new Medicare patients (72 percent),

 

 

 

So in the context of this argument, if we go to Medicare-for-all, would the new enrollees be Existing Medicare patients or New enrollees? New enrollees, of course.

 

Why would that be?

 

Let's think about this a little bit. Are the reimbursement rates higher for doctors with Medicare or Private Insurance? Private Insurance.

 

So if doctors are receiving less for Medicare and now you switch all their business to a lower level of the rates they will be reimbursed, what would logically follow?

 

 

 

Would there be more doctors accepting it relative to the available patients or would there be less? Of course, there would be less as many would opt out to concierge care or other forms of private insurance.

 

Would the quality of care and the time that doctors spend with their patients be longer or shorter? Shorter, of course.

 

Logistically it would be a nightmare. There would be lots of unforeseen dislocations and unintended consequences in the Medical field.

 

Basically healthcare would be divided into 2 types of care. People who have more money who would get higher quality care via Concierge or Private care and then there would be bureaucratic, rationed care for everyone else. But you'd have Universal healthcare.

 

That is the trade off in regards to quality of care.

 

Then of course there are the other impacts, such as the cost/taxation/debt and the effects it would have on the economy. At the very least it would be a slight drag on the economy, much like what we see in Europe. It would essentially put the last nail in the coffin to leading us to become yet another Zombie economy like we see in Europe. Stagnation

[DC Tom]

 

The question is, did you read the entire article?

 

 

 

 

So in the context of this argument, if we go to Medicare-for-all, would the new enrollees be Existing Medicare patients or New enrollees? New enrollees, of course.

 

Why would that be?

 

Let's think about this a little bit. Are the reimbursement rates higher for doctors with Medicare or Private Insurance? Private Insurance.

 

So if doctors are receiving less for Medicare and now you switch all their business to a lower level of the rates they will be reimbursed, what would logically follow?

 

 

 

Would there be more doctors accepting it relative to the available patients or would there be less? Of course, there would be less as many would opt out to concierge care or other forms of private insurance.

 

Would the quality of care and the time that doctors spend with their patients be longer or shorter? Shorter, of course.

 

Logistically it would be a nightmare. There would be lots of unforeseen dislocations and unintended consequences in the Medical field.

 

Basically healthcare would be divided into 2 types of care. People who have more money who would get higher quality care via Concierge or Private care and then there would be bureaucratic, rationed care for everyone else. But you'd have Universal healthcare.

 

That is the trade off in regards to quality of care.

 

Then of course there are the other impacts, such as the cost/taxation/debt and the effects it would have on the economy. At the very least it would be a slight drag on the economy, much like what we see in Europe. It would essentially put the last nail in the coffin to leading us to become yet another Zombie economy like we see in Europe. Stagnation

Calling him an idiot is quicker and just as accurate.

[unbillievable]

[row_33]

 

Doc...you're seriously one of the better, brighter liberal posters we've had in a while.

 

Keep it up.

 

 

 

 

Doc is 100% legit. I wish I had the energy and time to seriously engage him as much as he deserves...

Calling him an idiot is quicker and just as accurate.

 

That is your calling.

[Magox]

Calling him an idiot is quicker and just as accurate.

 

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

[row_33]

 

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

 

you'll learn

[Joe Miner]

 

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

I tend to doubt the benefit of everyone.

[reddogblitz]

There are many reasons (too many I care to explain) that it is absolutely essential we spend that much on our defense and some would argue more. Also, a better graph would be the % of our GDP we spend on defense compared to other countries as that graph is misleading due to our population % compared to others on that graph. I'm all for looking into how our defense spending is distributed to cut down on wasteful spending, but I can't stress enough how important it is to maintain the strongest military and defense system on this planet.

Maybe you could just give us the top 3?

I like the idea of a single risk pool for all citizens, coupled with some sort off individual annual deductible and HSA. The shell game of subsidizing expensive private individual insurance plans hopefully is coming to an end.

Sounds like the reddogblitz health plan. I like it!

[Dr.Sack]

What's the rate for accepting new Medicare and Medicaid patients? Why is that different than accepting private insurance patients?

Medicare and private insurance acceptance are virtually the same. Moving to a universal system, would mean that all payments would come from the Medicare system. In most countries private for profit hospitals do not exist. The system is designed to serve the people, not enrich healthcare administrators and bureaucrats.

 

The more important point is lowering costs. Medicare would negotiate prices directly and as the single insurer would end the grotesque price inflation in our healthcare system. Also right now Medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. That would come to an end. The key is lowering costs and covering everyone.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[4merper4mer]

Medicare and private insurance acceptance are virtually the same. Moving to a universal system, would mean that all payments would come from the Medicare system. In most countries private for profit hospitals do not exist. The system is designed to serve the people, not enrich healthcare administrators and bureaucrats.

The more important point is lowering costs. Medicare would negotiate prices directly and as the single insurer would end the grotesque price inflation in our healthcare system. Also right now Medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. That would come to an end. The key is lowering costs and covering everyone.

OMFG

[Dr.Sack]

OMFG

OMFG. When you have lost the debate. You sound like Lil Marco. You gotta do better than that if you want to stay on the debate stage with the big boys Lil Marco. At least whip out a Venezuela or Zimbabwe reference like Lyin Ted would.