Most Democrats think "Medicare For All" means they can still keep their plans

Sure.

Europe’s health systems on life support

https://www.politico.eu/article/eur...eport-drug-pricing-medicines-public-services/

N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service.html

The NHS is under threat. Only a new model of care will save it

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2018/jan/04/nhs-under-threat-new-model-of-care

How France plans to transform its struggling health system - The Local

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180918/how-france-plans-to-transform-its-struggling-health-system

Waiting for better care: why Australia’s hospitals and health care are failing

http://theconversation.com/waiting-...-hospitals-and-health-care-are-failing-104862

 

And you get what you pay for......longer wait times, doctor shortages and bed shortages.

 

It's the DMV of health care.

 

<Reply to Deleted>

The answer to how single-payer CAN BE cheaper is simple. The UK spends 58% LESS on healthcare per capita than we do. - https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

And their healthcare ranks best out of the top 11 countries while ours ranks last as # 11. - https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

So here's the answer to how it COULD be better.... If we were to copy the UK system from top to bottom, and we could even spend 50% more more to make it the best, and our final cost would be more than 40% less than it is now.

Now here's a question for you, since I have answered yours.... since all developed OECD countries spend less than we do and we are #11 in terms of outcomes, are you saying that we can't do as well as every other country? Are we not up to the challenge?

 

We have to first look at a market solution to healthcare, which I believe is definitely possible.

If we ever do get a free market in healthcare, and costs do not go down, (which I don't believe will happen), then we can look at the Singapore model, which is still relatively private, but does have government intervention, or universal multi-payer system, where competition still exists.

 

Not true. That's mere word play. And this isn't a bill. It's an entitlement that is paid for by those who receive it.

 

<Rule 3/5>

Yeah the UK is great if you like waiting and dying.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#f1bd7cd36b89

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.

 

I agree.

The points I've been trying to make is that:

a. The government doesn't do anything cheaper
b. The government doesn't do anything better
c. The prices of health care by category won't be cheaper by going to government run healthcare

There are lots of things we can do to lower health care that have nothing to do with letting the incompetent government run it.

 

Medicare for All, imo would be a disaster. Coverage would be expanded, but there would be long wait times, shortages, people would die due to inefficiency.

Without some price signaling, there is no way to know, if resources are being allocated and distributed efficiently.

That is why markets have always been the best way to allocated and use, the scarce resources on our planet efficiently.

 

Haha you think an entitlement doesn't come with a bill.

Oh man.

 

In NY, candidate Cynthia Nixon for governor, was planning to do state single-payer in NY. This would've have been so bad. Taxes would go up, even more in high tax NY, and the care would be worse.

If you ever want to see government ineffiency, just look at NY's MTA subway system. It's complete disaster, and every time the fix is more funding. More funding has never solved the core problems of the Subway. This is literally the answer for everything. When something doesn't work, just pore more cash on it.

 

Strange. I'm on Medicare and I'm not sure I've ever seen an office.

Now I understand your problem.
1 - Medicare costs 1.288 trillion not 3.5 trillion.
2 - That 1.3 trillion covers everyone over 65 - old people.
3 - when you adjust Medicare for the age of the population it would only cost 1.35 trillion to cover the other 276 million peeps.
4 - I think that adds up to 2.6 trillion. Not 6.5 trillion.

 

Every single developed country in the world has a dual track system. The only except is Canada, where you can not purchase healthcare directly. However, here is the problem. The healthcare industry in the US knows too well, that having universal healthcare options create HUGE competition and heavy downward pressure on prices. Not good when you are a business making mega billions. For example in the UK, $1 billion a year is spent in the private healthcare. Public healthcare: $175 billion!

If Medicare were extended to all, and tailored to cover working adults (as Medicaid is), employers would STILL want to compete on the basis of health benefits. They would simply purchase Medicare supplement plans for their employees instead. But those plans are SO MUCH cheaper that the difference in premiums MORE than offsets the tax increase from both the business and employer needed to implement the program. Simply put: Profits go up. Paychecks go up. The cost of doctors comes down. Everyone gets covered.

Even in countries where there is single-payer medical care, supplemental coverage is available. Such coverage may provide for private rooms, speedier access to voluntary surgery, etc. Medicare in the US does not pay for everything. I would anticipate that Medicare for All would likewise not pay for everything. Supplemental coverage will be desirable.

Medicare for All is not the best solution. It wold still be much better than the current healthcare situation in the US.

 

You gave me the 3.5 trillion figure earlier.

The "medicare for all" adds 3 trillion per year, but it will actually be much more than that.

 

No. I said total healthcare was 3.5 trillion.
And no, the total bill if you talking Bernie's plan, is 3 trillion. Mines cheaper.

 

Wait! So your trying to make a point and you don't know how much we spend on healthcare.

 

Wow, this article shows really how bad NHS, and government run healthcare really is.

'Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.'

'Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009.'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#4073e3f236b8


Creds to vman12 for article.

 

And you plan on paying the same premiums as me, correct?

 

You know what? Because of your insistence on spinning anything I say into a false attack, you're back on "ignore".

 

What is the algorithm for "adjusting for age"?
I'm sure you've studied it.

And then, add in the additional 25%, the part you owe out of pocket (20/80=25%).
And then add in the out of pocket costs for prescription drug on top of that.

Oh yeah, did you account for physical infrastructure and maintenence costs?
HHS budget?
Tech infrastructure and costs?
Increased salary and benefits costs?


And lastly,..... you are volunteering to pay the same annual premium for your policy as me, correct?

 

no reply

 

I used the same one used for Obamacare.

It's an advantage plan. All that's included. Plus dental and vision.

Yep.

I already get Medicare. If you'll notice I didn't change anything there.

Are you ready to sign up?

 

So having NO health care is better?

I have never yet had even ONE conservative come close to answering this. Basically, you're all just saying FRACK anyone who doesn't have health care on their own, and that is well over 20 millions last I heard.

 

So you don't know.
Thank you

I'm sorry, I'm laughing now

Show and tell time.
Produce the evidence

Everyone else doesn't.
Time to pony up

 

If you have something specific, I'd be happy to hear it. But you don't seem to have anything.
If you have some better numbers for example - quote them and back them up. But short of that your just wasting time.
You could for example look at the trustees report for Medicare to see what they cover in their costs.

<Trolling>