We can't afford NOT TO do single payer health care

I didn't start this threat, idiot - you did.

You're responding to the thread, you fucking idiot.


That is certainly not true - not even close to true. I can go to any doctor I please. I get a discount if I see doctors in the network the Blue Cross has, but out of network is still paid 50%

So you're paying more for out of network care because of your PPO. Does that make sense to you?

Basically, you're punching yourself in the nuts to own da libs.

Yeah, you're sure showing us by spending 50% more on your health care than every other patient in your insurance pool.

This is what I mean when I say you're a fucking dumbass.
 
Again, absolutely false. One of the primary aspects of the ACA is that the physician has final say over treatment and that insurance companies may not deny medically valid treatments.

Except that they do.

That's why despite the law, there are still 10,000 medical bankruptcies every year.

Medical bankruptcies only occur because the insurance company has denied the claim and the patient can't afford to pay the full bill.

According to KFF: Issuer denial rates for in-network claims ranged from 2% to 49%. In 2021, 41 of the 162 reporting issuers had a denial rate of less than 10%, 65 issuers denied between 10% and 19% of in-network claims, 39 issuers denied 20-29%, and 17 issuers denied 30% or more of in-network claims.

So again, we have yet another example of you putting your foot in your mouth because you only understand about 33-50% of what you post on JPP.


Utterly false. I have formulary and non-formulary coverage. Any drug my doctor prescribes is covered.

So Obamacare didn't ruin your health insurance plan after all, and it actually sounds like the ACA improved it!

So you're talking about how awesome and wonderful your coverage is...and that's due to the ACA!

So you should be THANKING Obamacare because without it, you wouldn't have this stellar coverage you have today.
 
Of course virtually everything you claim now was a lie when you said it about insurance prior to Fascist Care - it's a laughable lie now - as you contradict your own lies from 8 years ago.

What I love most about your post is that in your attempt to denigrate Obamacare, you ended up inadvertently singing its praises because of your health care plan that you seem to love so much.

A health care plan that exists despite the ACA somehow ruining it.

So when you said that the ACA destroys health care or whatever, did you just forget that your current insurance plan exists as you have laid out because of the ACA???

So the dissonance is that you think Obamacare destroyed health care and was fascist, yet you are bragging about having an insurance plan that meets all the ACA guidelines.

Open mouth, insert foot.
 
I find that very hard to believe and this sounds a lot like what that fat bitch Julie Boonstra tried to pull off.

Like you, she too was vague and uninformed.

Turns out she either lied or didn't understand her insurance plan.

Obamacare saved her $2,500 after falsely claiming that's what her health care costs rose to:

Maybe there are no genuine Obamacare horror stories
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-horror-stories-20140220-story.html

Also, you don't get insurance through your employer, correct? You buy it yourself? Why didn't you look for a cheaper plan on the exchanges? Are you that helpless? You could have always just called healthcare.gov and they could have helped you find a cheaper plan, if what you're saying is true. Why don't you help yourself? Is it because you think you're entitled to other people helping you without doing anything in return? Cuz that's what it sounds like.

Also, it doubled and then didn't rise again? So it doubled in two years, but then didn't increase at all over the next 10? You should be thanking Obamacare for that since the goal was to cut back on increasing costs.

It doubled in two years.....over the last few years it has gone up, maybe 200 a year???
 
Because they get reimbursed from the insurance pool, dipshit. That's the entire purpose of health insurance. Think of reimbursements like revenue...the provider gets revenue from the claims it submits to the insurance pool. The insurer then sends the reimbursement to the provider who applies it to the P&L, just like any other business.

Le sigh.

This is what I mean when I say you don't know how our health care system works.

your ignorance and obtuseness is too frustrating. what I dislike most about trying to debate with you is that you throw out the stupidest false bullshit as real, then do everything possible to deny the facts given you. I refuse to deal with your delusions and lies. now, you go ahead, claim it as a win, feel better about yourself. I don't care any more.
 
Is doing the same thing and failing really what we should want to do moving forward?

Why would Medicare for All fail?


It's quite clear that the whole use of insurance to pay for routine healthcare is a massive, and expensive, fail.

No, the concept of health insurance makes total sense since you can't predict what your health care needs will be in the future, so you insure your health in the future by enrolling in an insurance plan.

Of course, the larger the insurance pool, the lower the premiums and the higher the reimbursements...every insurance company has figured this out and the system isn't failing them, it's working exactly as planned for the insurance companies. They are making billions in profit by denying claims and rationing care.

There is no reason for M4A to deny a claim or ration care since the only reason to do either is to make a profit.


Going forward, we would see the same thing that has happened to flood insurance. That's single payer now, and it's a bottomless pit of stupidity run by FEMA.

Is it stupid to insure people who don't want to move from their homes, despite repeated flooding? I don't know. That's not for me to decide and I don't really have an opinion on it. I guess...don't live near a river? But then that's government telling you where you can live, which is a big no-no, right?
 
I agree with a lot that CA does (and love most of that state by the way), but I've been trying to figure out why CA couldn't get M4A passed. Wouldn't even vote on it. Nothing I've read online suggests that the reason was cost.

One of the major problems is that some workers in CA have insurance in other states...not unlike what happened in Vermont when they tried to do single payer there...the problem they kept running into was that you had people who live in NY or NH or MA who commute INTO Vermont to work. Since those people aren't Vermont residents, they can't share in the Vermont single payer plan. That's one of the biggest contributing factors to why M4A needs to be national. People cross state lines all the time to do commerce and to work.
 
It doubled in two years.....over the last few years it has gone up, maybe 200 a year???

Now your story is starting to change because it's being held to scrutiny.

So Obamacare has been around since 2010...you said that your costs "doubled" in two years.

So let's assume you're not buying a family plan, instead you are buying an individual plan. Well, according to BLS data, the average premium for a single adult in 2009 was $92.43.

You said that the ACA doubled that cost, so the plan by 2012 was $184.86.

Then you said that it went up by "maybe $200 a year", over the next ten years...so that means you currently pay a monthly premium of $2,184?

Really?
 
your ignorance and obtuseness is too frustrating. what I dislike most about trying to debate with you is that you throw out the stupidest false bullshit as real, then do everything possible to deny the facts given you. I refuse to deal with your delusions and lies. now, you go ahead, claim it as a win, feel better about yourself. I don't care any more.

I literally told you the process when it comes to insurers reimbursing providers, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here.

I suspect this is just an outburst because you didn't count on me knowing that level of detail.

And you haven't given me any facts...all you've given me are anecdotes that you won't ever verify.
 
Why would Medicare for All fail?

No, the concept of health insurance makes total sense since you can't predict what your health care needs will be in the future, so you insure your health in the future by enrolling in an insurance plan.

Of course, the larger the insurance pool, the lower the premiums and the higher the reimbursements...every insurance company has figured this out and the system isn't failing them, it's working exactly as planned for the insurance companies. They are making billions in profit by denying claims and rationing care.

There is no reason for M4A to deny a claim or ration care since the only reason to do either is to make a profit.

Is it stupid to insure people who don't want to move from their homes, despite repeated flooding? I don't know. That's not for me to decide and I don't really have an opinion on it. I guess...don't live near a river? But then that's government telling you where you can live, which is a big no-no, right?

My alternative, and I've suggested this before, is to do the following. And, yes, part of this is a sop to the existing system simply because you really can't just get rid of it--too many vested interests to have that happen.

1. You institute a national catastrophic health insurance plan. Everybody pays into this like with Medicare / Medicaid. The deductible is set at something like $10,000 or maybe a bit higher. What this covers are one-time events where you get wholloped with a huge medical expense. This doesn't cover routine medical care. It's for major one-time medical events like you need open heart surgery or something. Sure, you still have to meet the deductible, but that's payable for most people over a few years.

2. You make ALL medical expenses out-of-pocket 100% tax deductible. You get 100% back on that up to your yearly income.

3. You make an employer - employee fund system where the employer gives each employee a set amount of money for health care each year. This can be managed by what are now health insurance companies if the employer wants. The size of the fund can vary and a cap of say, $10,000 or something is put on how large the amount each employee can be given.
What this fund does, is pay up to 100% of any medical expense, whatever it is, the employee has. Submit the bill, get up to 100% paid from the fund. This covers routine medical care and a big chunk of the catastrophic plan deductible if you have to use that.
At the end of each year, any money left in the fund is split 50/50 between the employee and employer. It is taxable income except if either rolls it over into the next year's medical expense account. (more on the employee part in a minute) For the employer, this means over time they could see the money being put into this system by them diminish to a point where it is self-sustaining. That is the money they get at the end of each year is rolled over and over time builds to a point where it is sufficient to meet next year's costs.
For the employee, not being sick or using this account means a big bonus for being healthy at the end of the year.

4. An additional system is in place where each person in the US can open a medical expense account and put money into it. This money is pre-tax and withdrawals are 100% tax deductible for medical expenses as before. So, an employee with the above account in 3 can dump their left over money at the end of the year into a personal account if they wish. The advantage of this that over time, a person builds up a huge personal medical expense account that is portable. That is, they change jobs, they have coverage until they get a new job. They retire, they still have coverage. This works like a 401K or IRA for medical expenses and such accounts can be invested and managed just like those retirement accounts.
If you use this account to cover your routine medical expenses, that's fine too and you can pay up to 100% of your expenses out of it. If you have more than the catastrophic deductible in it, you are covered for that.

5. For those that are receiving government assistance, welfare, etc., they get such an account like in 4 opened for them for medical expenses. Money that would otherwise go to them from the government outside of their welfare benefits etc., gets deposited into that account instead going to them to spend. So, if they are marginally employed Earned Income Credit goes into their medical account. Tax return money goes into their medical account, etc. The object is to build them a fund for medical expenses over time.

This means that YOU manage YOUR medical expenses, not some insurance company or the government. Insurers help employers run their accounts if the employer wants that service. The government covers only catastrophic medical expenses using a non-profit system. That means all the vested interests in health insurance still get a cut of the action.
 
1. You institute a national catastrophic health insurance plan. Everybody pays into this like with Medicare / Medicaid. The deductible is set at something like $10,000 or maybe a bit higher. What this covers are one-time events where you get wholloped with a huge medical expense. This doesn't cover routine medical care. It's for major one-time medical events like you need open heart surgery or something. Sure, you still have to meet the deductible, but that's payable for most people over a few years.

Over a few years? A lot can happen over a few years, like getting laid off by your employer because of an economic collapse triggered by supply side, trickle down bullshit.

So you want a system where people are paying for their health care 2, 3, 4, 5 years after the fact? That sounds exactly like the system we had before the ACA that led to 30,000 medical bankruptcies a year.
 
2. You make ALL medical expenses out-of-pocket 100% tax deductible. You get 100% back on that up to your yearly income.

So increasing the deficit by retaining private insurers and their chargemasters, rather than decreasing it with a single payer plan that wipes all chargemasters out.

So I never want to ever see you invoke the deficit ever again because your plan here would only increase it.

Pretty fucking stupid idea, if you ask me.

You're also not addressing the major contributing factor to the costs and the crisis: Administration.

The system you are laying out here doesn't even mention the inefficiencies and waste within the capitalist bureaucracy that each of these companies have. As much as $0.34 of every $1.00 spent on private health care goes to administration. Medicare's overhead is no more than 5%.
 
3. You make an employer - employee fund system where the employer gives each employee a set amount of money for health care each year. This can be managed by what are now health insurance companies if the employer wants. The size of the fund can vary and a cap of say, $10,000 or something is put on how large the amount each employee can be given.
What this fund does, is pay up to 100% of any medical expense, whatever it is, the employee has. Submit the bill, get up to 100% paid from the fund. This covers routine medical care and a big chunk of the catastrophic plan deductible if you have to use that.
At the end of each year, any money left in the fund is split 50/50 between the employee and employer. It is taxable income except if either rolls it over into the next year's medical expense account. (more on the employee part in a minute) For the employer, this means over time they could see the money being put into this system by them diminish to a point where it is self-sustaining. That is the money they get at the end of each year is rolled over and over time builds to a point where it is sufficient to meet next year's costs.
For the employee, not being sick or using this account means a big bonus for being healthy at the end of the year.

This won't lower costs...this will only increase costs because you are continuing to maintain a fractured health insurance industry that isn't portable and is subject to different laws in each state.

The myriad insurance plans out there are precisely the reason why premiums are so high and why they continue to grow higher each year.

Having myriad insurance plans adds to administrative overhead and inefficiencies, and does nothing to lower premiums for patients.

The simplest and cheapest way to do this is to have every single person on the same insurance plan, that way the single payer can use its leverage as the only payer to get cheaper rates on everything.

If you truly want to save costs, then the only solution is for every single person to be on the same insurance plan.
 
4. An additional system is in place where each person in the US can open a medical expense account and put money into it. This money is pre-tax and withdrawals are 100% tax deductible for medical expenses as before. So, an employee with the above account in 3 can dump their left over money at the end of the year into a personal account if they wish. The advantage of this that over time, a person builds up a huge personal medical expense account that is portable. That is, they change jobs, they have coverage until they get a new job. They retire, they still have coverage. This works like a 401K or IRA for medical expenses and such accounts can be invested and managed just like those retirement accounts.
If you use this account to cover your routine medical expenses, that's fine too and you can pay up to 100% of your expenses out of it. If you have more than the catastrophic deductible in it, you are covered for that.

So it seems all you want to do is grow the private insurance bureaucracy by instituting needlessly complex and unnecessary ideas.

Costs will never come down so long as there are multiple private insurance companies involved.

Never.

So you have a decision to make here...what is more important for you; the amount you spend on your health care, or maintaining a system that can bankrupt you if you are unlucky?
 
5. For those that are receiving government assistance, welfare, etc., they get such an account like in 4 opened for them for medical expenses. Money that would otherwise go to them from the government outside of their welfare benefits etc., gets deposited into that account instead going to them to spend. So, if they are marginally employed Earned Income Credit goes into their medical account. Tax return money goes into their medical account, etc. The object is to build them a fund for medical expenses over time.

This means that YOU manage YOUR medical expenses, not some insurance company or the government. Insurers help employers run their accounts if the employer wants that service. The government covers only catastrophic medical expenses using a non-profit system. That means all the vested interests in health insurance still get a cut of the action.

Everything you are describing will only result in increased costs and more personal bankruptcies because you aren't addressing the elephant in the room.

You cannot have a system that makes patient outcomes the priority if that system relies on profit.

So you have a choice to make...what is more important for you, your personal health outcomes or the profit outcomes of corporations? Because you can't have both.
 
Back
Top