Medicare for all???

incorrect. It was for interpretation and report only. Nothing to do with cost of machine.

 

The fact that you gave no specific examples proves you do not know what you’re talking about.

 

I am well aware of the Peterson-Kaiser reputation. But in reading their analyses starting around 2012 it was very obvious -- and frankly surprising -- that they were heavily biased in favor of the ACA. That's when I somewhat fell away from them.

My anecdotal example is well known to be multiplied by the millions. The significant increase in the price of medical coverage after ACA is well known and not in any rational dispute.

What you say about the ACA affecting ER usage at hospitals is correct. But I was talking about the general broad increased support of hospitals at the expense of private clinics.

 

$5 or $10, in this context, is truly an insignificant distinction. In either case, they are not making any money and probably losing a bit.

The real loser in this arrangement is patient care. Doctors are going to make their money, of that you can rest assured. When reimbursement is drastically cut, they are going to pack in more patients to make up for that shortfall and the result of packing in more patients is that they have far less time with each patient. Patient care suffers greatly as a result. We have all already seen that within our lifetimes, and a Medicare for All type arrangement would increase that process exponentially. As of right now they tolerate Medicare knowing that they will make up for it with their private insurance patients. If Medicare were the only payor, things would change drastically.

 

Medicare for all is just another version of the failed ACA. There's no learning curve with you folks, if something doesn't work you don't replace with something else that won't work. The ACA is nearly ten years old and has never been fully implemented because it was designed to fail as a means to foist the even bigger loser of single payer on America. Ten years is a long time, how many Americans suffered because of this bogus political ploy. This is America and we will never consent to the government taking over our most personal decisions. We must put our legislators to task to find a way to return healthcare back to the market to deliver quality care without bankrupting subscribers.

 

"And why do you believe doctors in US currently get paid at a rate that “barely covers their cost of providing care”?"

Doctors definitely make enough money to live comfortable lives even though they may not say so. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

But I can't see how a non-governmental universal health care system comes to fruition or can even exist. Is there some kind of universal medical coverage that is not governmental??

 

Let me see if I understand this: "EACH and EVERY" does not constitute a specific example. Is this about right????? Is claiming that the ACA did not change any procedure codes somehow supposed to show that you know what you're talking about???

 

Correct, your comment does not constitute any SPECIFIC examples. You’re being vague by making a sweeping comment.
Where did I claim the ACA did not change any procedure codes? If you’re going to resort to being disingenuous then you are dismissed.

 

A big part of it is thanks to lawyers and lawsuits.

 

That's probably because you ignore we are already paying more for todays healthcare than we would for Medicare for all.

 

I thank you a lot.

 

So you admit to being disingenuous. Cool. Have a nice day.

 

In your example, you are assuming 2% of the population are infant deaths, and that seems a lot higher than the actual infant morality. And I am not sure all infant mortality is even counted under birth deaths. Even using your extreme numbers, the life expectancy was only thrown off by 1.6 years. Additionally, I'd like to see more documentation on the differences between life expectancy calculations between the US and other nations, and if they are at all significant. Maybe some European countries also calculate life expectancy like the US, while others don't.

I do get your arguments that we do have more ethic minorities who don't live as long. However, they don't live as long because they tend to be low-income, not because of their race. In Europe, more of the poor people tend to be white. You also bring up obesity and tobacco use. Europeans actually have a much higher rate of tobacco use and alcohol. They do have a lower obesity rate, but the obesity rate in Europe is by no means low, it is only lower and rising.

But even with these counter-arguments, there are so many cultural influences on life expectancy that we can't attribute it entirely to the healthcare system. However, we spending 2 - 3 times as much money on healthcare and we have this private healthcare which is supposed to be so much better than the government with much shorter waiting times. Its quite amazing that we can't achieve an amazing life expectancy with this super-expensive healthcare.

 

And so you are looking to the democrat party to fix things when they cannot even count votes? Sure, sure they can take over and run healthcare.....not!

 

What Emanuel is talking about is if two people were waiting for a procedure, it would make more sense to care for the younger one first since he has more years left. This reasoning is the same no matter the government's involvement in healthcare. He also never mentioned the government forcing private healthcare providers to refuse care to elderly people. Obamacare has nothing even close to requiring rationing of health services to younger people or even requiring that they prioritize younger people if there is a line. Additionally, Obamacare is a very different animal than Medicare for all. Bernie's plan is basically to spend trillions of dollars to cover absolutely everything, and will probably make the healthcare richer rather than poorer.

 

Obviously the democratic part of Iowa won't be running the public option or Medicare. It will be a government agency, probably the same one that already runs Medicare.

 

In the Medicare model the government only runs the insurance side, but doesn't actually provide healthcare. That is correct. I'd actually transition the VA away from government-provided care myself and roll it up with Medicare and Medicaid. Its an unpopular idea, but I believe it would greatly simplify things.

 

Military and veterans have other choices available to them through Tricare, which in general is far superior than regular Medicare plans. It's budget is allocated through the Defense budget.

 

FA, have you not read any threads on this in which I mention that I LIVE in a country which has had nationalised health for many decades? You can't tell me how it works if you've never lived or worked with it. I'm telling you how it does work.

SOME doctors (though in the scheme of things, hardlly any) are employed by govt. The vast majority of doctors and specialists are private practitioners. Public health is insurance. And yes we do have public hospitals, but there are actually more private hospitals.

 

Not sure what you mean by voucher. And would it improve patient outcomes? Because that needs work, in America. Big time.

 

In ours, govt only provides care in our public hospitals. The rest is via insurance.

 

So you are a fan of rationing I see

It's not how we do it, and not what the fans of single payer think we are getting

There won't be any. And the elderly currently get enormous amounts of care under medicare.
Are you proposing that the single payer cut them off?

Obamacare is a framework with most of the details yet to be filled in, with no new vote necessary. Just bureaucrat edict as mandated by the current law

Single payer will be designed by the bureaucrats with the bulk of the regulatory framework already authored under Obamacare. Committees can fill in the details of the obamacare framework with no oversight, as per the law.
Most of the details of the law are yet to be written, by individual committees. That is how the bill was authored. It gives the committees power to decide at will. No oversight. No ability to fight it.

 

And yet it doesn't. Our patient outcomes are better than America's, and we've had public health for a long time. What you imagine would happen and what does actually happen, are two different things.

 

I don't agree with that.

We already spend far more on healthcare than any other country in the world.

The idea that Medicare for all would cost even MORE just doesn't make sense.

What is this absolutely gigantic new expenditure that would be required?