Medicare for all???

I have posted it before and it just gets ignored.

We could dissolve our military entirely, pay zero dollars for defense, and still not have enough money to cover Medicare for all.

Free always sounds good, until you realize nothing is actually free, and the cost of free is far too much.

 

As a liberal I admit that Bernie is an idiot. But you can take that with a grain of salt because I would be a conservative if there existed a group of intellectual conservatives who rejected the bigotry and idiocy that has infested the vast majority of the conservative school of thought.

 

That's fine.

On the contrary the birth death rate is a predominant factor in life expectancy. For every birth death you need another person to live to be 150 in order to have an average life expectancy of 75.

 

Sounds like that you believe unless someone has a good working knowledge of procedural codes they are too ignorant to talk about anything medical. That is quite self-serving.

I never said the Medicare's fee schedule has anything to do with ACA. I said the procedural coding was explicitly designed in the ACA. Am I going too fast for you?

 

The foundational and fundamental conservative school of thought is the belief in a limited central government, the separation if governmental powers, and support for our constitutional republic. Where is the bigotry and idiocy in that?

 

Trump said everyone would be covered too, but his plan was a bit different

 

which is why we support universal health insurance, not health care provided by the government

I would 100% support ending the requirement for prescriptions and allow people to self medicate themselves - do you support that?

if people have to go to a doctor to get permission because of laws, the government should help fund that, why should a person have to pay to get a prescription they already know they need? if they want the advice of a doctor, they can pay to get that advice

 

The birth death rate isn't predominant because so few of them happen today. For every birth death, you have hundreds of people living into their eighties and nineties, that it doesn't even matter.

 

The Medicare physician fee schedule (procedural coding) has been around LONG before ACA. So no, it has nothing specifically to do with ACA. You really are out of your league.

 

and the difference is what???????

I think the FDA greatly and excessively overplays their hand though having control and regulations over the use of some drugs is probably essential and could properly come under the federal government's purview. Their are many drugs that are physiologically dangerous and just as many that the average person wouldn't know about or have any way of knowing about a drug's incompatibility with other drugs or medical anomalies. In those cases I think it is eminently correct to control and limit use. But there are many cases where a person should be able to go to the store and buy their own medication when they can't now.

There is no reason that a government should fund the cost of obeying laws.

 

None-the-less the reason we are not at the top of the life expectancy charts is because of birth death accounting.

 

You haven't shown that. You have to show that the birth death rate is large enough to reduce the overall life expectancy by 5%.

 

But not the damn codes and the current coding procedure. All of that changed massively with ACA.

 

Except that he is actually correct in regards to the reimbursement rate for an EKG in an office setting.

CPT 93010

http://www.medicarepaymentandreimbursement.com/2011/05/electrocardiogram-ecg-or-ekg-cpt-93000.html

 

Peterson-Kaiser and others who track total healthcare expenditure in the US do not show any significant rise in expenditure that can be traced to the ACA.

Perhaps the next largest factor is drug pricing, which had a serious up spike in 2015 that has gone back down according to Peterson-KFF.

It looks like there has been a slight shift away from per capita hospital spending toward spending on physicians and clinics - which is something the ACA intended to accomplish, since hospitals tend to be more expensive - especially ER care that those without insurance have been shown to use.

 

I am not impressed with the Kaiser tracking. I have found it to be deficient (even if extensive) and deceptive. For just one anecdotal example for son's deductible rising from about $500 to $10,000 is a direct result from ACA with his annual premium roughly doubling. Similar stories abound by the millions.

You have the ACA objective backwards. It wanted to increase hospital usage at the expense of private clinics. For example it set doctor reimbursement rates higher for a hospital staff doctor than a private doctor. Though I don't know who successful it was or if it is still the case today.

 

Incorrect. He said it was for the EKG, what you posted, in regards to a price close to the $5, is just for the interpretation. Which is just basically looking at the results, in other words not much work at all.

 

How so? What is it you think changed? Give some examples

 

Peterson-Kaiser is a well respected source of health care data.

And, you even point out that your data is anecdotal!! What the heck am I supposed to say to that - other than that it is anecdotal?

If you want to show a study by some other group, please do. But, don't quote me more anecdotes.

The ACA wanted to shrink the amount of ER usage for indigent care, as that was known to be a significantly expensive way to enable low income people to get care.

 

Age pensioners ARE the poor.

 

My own. But what difference does it make? Mine is one of the well known and well established public health systems. I've both lived with it, and worked in it .. my entire adult life.

 

one is universal health insurance
the other is universal health care - government doctors (this is not what people want)

 

A real commie never gives anyone something for nothing. Bernie is something, but he's no commie.

 

1) He's not a commie because he subscribes to the master/slave dynamic (unproductive masters being served by productive slaves).

2) Outlawing private health insurance is entirely undemocratic.

3) The 'socialised manner' fix that people are shooting for is only possible via capitalism.

4) Exactly, and it's that PROFIT which funds social programs.

 

My own, for example. Private insurance is still an option for anyone who is too fancy for the public system. We don't have 'individual responsibility for costs' though. Not sure how we could in fully funded system.