Medicare For All a fiscal winner

[LV426]

Yeah, we can trust the SOCIALIST , PP PR FIRM, LEFTIST PROPAGANDISTS at KAISER TO GIVE US THE ACTUAL FACTS....

You're fucked up.

[Flash]

Which is the industry logic for Medicare. The old are the most expensive to care for and we knew the Health insurance companies would find ways to not cover them. We had to find a way. So Medicare was invented.
For-profit health companies will find a way to get rid of those who need the most care. They always do. They will cap the lifetime amount too leaving the horribly sick or injured without care.

Medicare did not stop that problem:

"The number of doctors not accepting Medicare has more than doubled since 2009. Some 9,539 doctors dropped out of Medicare practice in 2012. That’s risen dramatically from 3,700 in 2009."

[LV426]

"The number of doctors not accepting Medicare has more than doubled since 2009. Some 9,539 doctors dropped out of Medicare practice in 2012. That’s risen dramatically from 3,700 in 2009."

According to KFF, in 2015, the physician acceptance rate for Medicare was 93%; for private insurance, it was 94%.

For new patient acceptance, Medicare was at 72% and private insurance was at 80%...so not much of a difference there.

Only 2% of physicians don't accept Medicare at all vs. 4% who do not accept any private insurance.

[Flash]

According to KFF, in 2015, the physician acceptance rate for Medicare was 93%; for private insurance, it was 94%.

For new patient acceptance, Medicare was at 72% and private insurance was at 80%...so not much of a difference there.

Only 2% of physicians don't accept Medicare at all vs. 4% who do not accept any private insurance.

The point was that the percentage not taking Medicare or Medicaid is increasing. Private insurance companies pay a much higher reimbursement rate and the low rate paid by Medicare/Medicaid leads to doctors taking as many patients and performing as many procedures as possible.

One reason other nations spend less on healthcare is that they limit how much is spent each year while Medicare/Medicaid spend as much as required to treat all those who are eligible.

[LV426]

The point was that the percentage not taking Medicare or Medicaid is increasing

No, the actual point is that the percentage with no health insurance at all is increasing.

Private insurance companies pay a much higher reimbursement rate

Yeah, why do they do that? It's not any benevolent reason. The reason they pay higher rates is because those rates ensure that both the provider and the insurer make a profit. The two collude with one another in the chargemaster to set the price for everything related to health care. Those prices are set with the goal of maximizing profit, not outcomes. So while they might reimburse at a higher rate, that's because the reimbursement amount is high and the result of collusion and price fixing between an insurance company and a doctor.

Do you...do you think there's such a thing as market pricing in health care? There isn't.

he low rate paid by Medicare/Medicaid leads to doctors taking as many patients and performing as many procedures as possible.

So...you don't want doctors to treat patients?

One reason other nations spend less on healthcare is that they limit how much is spent each year while Medicare/Medicaid spend as much as required to treat all those who are eligible.

Do they limit how much is spent each year, or are their health care systems focused on outcomes instead of volume?

[Flash]

What that means is that pre-ACA, if you went in to have a hip replacement and ended up developing a Staph infection while in recovery, Medicare/Medicaid would have covered the cost of the hip replacement and the treatment of the Staph infection. Post-ACA, Medicare/Medicaid won't reimburse the provider for the Staph infection treatment. This has led to higher outcomes for Medicare and Medicaid overall since 2010, according to KFF and the Commonwealth fund:

Except for the patient with the Staph infection.

[Truth Detector]

I don't understand why many liberals complain about tax cuts and "subsidies" for business yet seek to give them a huge benefit by assuming the health care costs they now provide to their employees.

That is a great observation. But the explanation is simple; leftists are not fact based or even logical based, they are math challenged and emotional based. Therefore, if it sounds good and feels good, it's good regardless of the disastrous outcomes of their policies.

[floridafan]

That is a great observation. But the explanation is simple; leftists are not fact based or even logical based, they are math challenged and emotional based. Therefore, if it sounds good and feels good, it's good regardless of the disastrous outcomes of their policies.

Even with Medicare for all, companies will be paying via a tax, for their employees health care, you dumb shit.

[LV426]

Except for the patient with the Staph infection.

Which is the fault of the provider, not Medicare.

So why should Medicare reimburse the provider for treating a condition that arose from the patient being in the provider's care? Why shouldn't the provider bear all that cost since they're the ones who fucked up?

You insisted outcomes weren't improved, but I just showed you that they were, thanks to the ACA's rule on reimbursement for re-admissions.

[LV426]

Even with Medicare for all, companies will be paying via a tax, for their employees health care, you dumb shit.

That's what Flash is actively ignoring...the fact that companies are still on the hook for providing coverage for their workers...only instead of paying $15K/worker to provide individual coverage, they instead pay 7.5% of their income. It's a deliberate sophist argument, and he knows it.

[Truth Detector]

Unlike tax cuts, M4A doesn't expand the deficit or debt.

That's the biggest lie you have made to date. M4A doesn't merely expand the deficit and the debt, but it will explode it. Of course, it will take over $100,000 in taxes per employed American to pay for it every year.

When you see estimates of $30 trillion over a ten year period, one with a brain naturally realizes that is $3 trillion a year in additional costs someone has to pay for. It's not complicated math. Unless you're a dishonest dipshit.

On top of that, Government managed healthcare leads to shortages in doctors, mismanagement, fiscal losses and very long waiting times for EVERYTHING.

Only willful idiots want European style healthcare that doesn't work and creates confiscatory tax policies.

[Flash]

That is a great observation. But the explanation is simple; leftists are not fact based or even logical based, they are math challenged and emotional based. Therefore, if it sounds good and feels good, it's good regardless of the disastrous outcomes of their policies.

They also favor the solutions that create a bigger government, more spending, and more government control over healthcare. Giving business tax breaks for providing heath insurance does not accomplish these goals.

[Truth Detector]

One reason other nations spend less on healthcare is that they limit how much is spent each year while Medicare/Medicaid spend as much as required to treat all those who are eligible.

Nations with National Healthcare plans do not pay less. They pay far more than we do in confiscatory taxes. The claims that these programs are less costly is based on lies.

Yes, they do limit which is why you cannot find specialists, have to wait months to see a doctor and perhaps a year for something as simple as a hip replacement.

The LAST thing anyone with a brain wants is to have the massive State determine what care you can and cannot have. Once implemented, there will be no recourse other than paying DOUBLE to find a plan outside of the National HC system.

[LV426]

They also favor the solutions that create a bigger government, more spending, and more government control over healthcare. Giving business tax breaks for providing heath insurance does not accomplish these goals.

What tax breaks are you talking about?

What we're proposing is swapping a business paying $15K/employee to provide individual coverage, with a 7.5% tax on income that provides for M4A.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Truth Detector]

They also favor the solutions that create a bigger government, more spending, and more government control over healthcare. Giving business tax breaks for providing heath insurance does not accomplish these goals.

They will raise taxes on corporations and anyone who is working in order to pay for this $30 trillion nightmare. But we must ALL remember, corporations do not pay taxes. They collect them. We, the consumers of their goods and services pay them. So it is like a double tax on us.