╌>

‘Medicare for All’: The Impossible Dream

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jasper2529  •  5 years ago  •  18 comments

‘Medicare for All’: The Impossible Dream
There’s no plausible route from here to there.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




The Brits and Canadians I know certainly love their single-payer health care systems. If one of their politicians suggested they should switch to the American health care model, they’d throw him out the window.

So single-payer health care, or in our case “Medicare for all,” is worth taking seriously. I’ve just never understood how we get from here to there, how we transition from our current system to the one Bernie Sanders has proposed and Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and others have endorsed.

Despite differences between individual proposals, the broad outlines of Medicare for all are easy to grasp. We’d take the money we’re spending on private health insurance and private health care, and we’d shift it over to the federal government through higher taxes in some form.

Then, since health care would be a public monopoly, the government could set prices and force   health care   providers to accept current Medicare payment rates. Medicare reimburses hospitals at   87 percent of costs   while private insurance reimburses at 145 percent of costs. Charles Blahous, a former Social Security and Medicare public trustee, estimates that under the Sanders plan, the government could pay about 40 percent less than what private insurers now pay for treatments.

If this version of Medicare for all worked as planned, everybody would be insured, health care usage would rise sharply because it would be free, without even a co-payment, and America would spend   less   over all on health care.

It sounds good. But the trick is in the transition.

Read more here.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1  seeder  Jasper2529    5 years ago
First, patients would have to transition. Right now,  roughly 181 million Americans receive health insurance through employers. About  70 percent  of these people say they are happy with their coverage. Proponents of Medicare for all are saying: We’re going to take away the insurance you have and are happy with, and we’re going to replace it with a new system you haven’t experienced yet because, trust us, we’re the federal government!
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @1    5 years ago
First, patients would have to transition.

Nope, the doctor's offices would transition and just have to fill out one set of forms instead of 50 different forms for 50 different insurance plans.

About  70 percent  of these people say they are happy with their coverage.

They'll be happier with the new one.

Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied

We’re going to take away the insurance you have and are happy with, and we’re going to replace it with a new system you haven’t experienced yet because, trust us, we’re the federal government!

Actually they're saying that we are taking away the private insurance plans that will treat your illness based on the companies profit margin, and will use every legal action available to make sure we keep our profits as priority over you keeping your life.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2  seeder  Jasper2529    5 years ago
The insurance companies would have to transition. Lots of people work for and serve this industry. All-inclusive public health care would destroy this industry beyond recognition, and those people would have to find other work.
 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1  charger 383  replied to  Jasper2529 @2    5 years ago

They go to work for new system.  Cut out the bonus and big salary for CEO and a few at the top and treat everybody else right 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.2  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @2    5 years ago

Other countries with Medicare for all, still have insurance.

It would not be eliminated.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @2    5 years ago
The insurance companies would have to transition.

They would just start selling supplementary insurance like they do in all the other countries, and like they do now for Medicare patients.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
3  seeder  Jasper2529    5 years ago
Hospitals would have to transition. In many small cities the local health care system is the biggest employer. As   Reihan Salam points out   in The Atlantic, the United States has far more fully stocked hospitals relative to its population and much lower bed occupancy than comparable European nations have. If you live in a place where the health system is a big employer, think what happens when that sector takes a sudden, huge pay cut. The ripple effects would be immediate — like a small deindustrialization.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    5 years ago
Hospitals would have to transition.

If it means them keeping money coming in, they will do it quickly.  Keep in mind that since private insurance companies change their policies yearly, hospitals have to transition just as often, difference is that once they switch to Medicare for all, they can stop transitioning.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
4  seeder  Jasper2529    5 years ago
Doctors would have to transition.  The American people would have to transition.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @4    5 years ago
Doctors would have to transition.

Nope, doctors would save lots of many.  Instead of hiring 6 insurance coders because of the myriad of different forms and procedures from every different private insurer, they would only have to hire enough to process their patients for 1 set of insurance papers and policies.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
5  seeder  Jasper2529    5 years ago
Finally, patient expectations would have to transition. Today, getting a doctor’s appointment is annoying but not onerous. In Canada, the  median wait time  between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is 8.7 weeks; between a G.P. referral and an orthopedic surgeon, it’s nine months. That would take some adjusting.
 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1  charger 383  replied to  Jasper2529 @5    5 years ago

Current insurance ways are biggest reason we don't have enough Doctors

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2  charger 383  replied to  Jasper2529 @5    5 years ago

It is already getting that bad

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @5    5 years ago
Finally, patient expectations would have to transition.

Patient expectations transition every year as it is.  When the policy changes they have to figure out what coverage they have lost and how much more premiums will cost them for the smaller coverage they now have.

 In Canada, the  median wait time  between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is 8.7 weeks; between a G.P. referral and an orthopedic surgeon, it’s nine months.

We already have wait times here, we also have a lot more doctors here, so your comparison is naive.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  JBB    5 years ago

We pay twice as much for worse outcomes under for profit insurance system...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7  charger 383    5 years ago

The big insurance companies have brought this on themselves  They can't be trusted to do this important service

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1  Ender  replied to  charger 383 @7    5 years ago

Not when their bottom line is the dollar. They are in it to make a profit, and they do.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8  Ender    5 years ago

The systems are already in place. It wouldn't be as hard as people make it out to be.

 
 

Who is online

bugsy
devangelical
Igknorantzruls
Freefaller


245 visitors