Defeating the bogeyman of single payer healthcare

no, costs of health insurance.

going up more due to Trump's petty and partisan games

 

So you don't think the actual costs should be covered?

 

do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

Yes, you started with costs then moved to insurance and somehow think subsidies will reduce costs.

Oh, and of course the Obamacare fiasco is Trump's fault.

 

no, i was ALWAYS talking about insurance costs

you're simply having trouble following the discussion

 

excerpt:

Medicare for all?
What about Medicare (and the single-payer argument)? Bernie Sanders and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party sense an opening for Medicare-for-all — or at least for lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55, allowing those between 55 and 65 to buy into existing Medicare, or creating a so-called “public option” (a new, publicly administered plan that would build off and resemble Medicare). Why not coalesce around this increasingly popular approach?

For starters, Medicaid has more generous coverage than Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries find themselves having to purchase supplemental private coverage to compensate for the program’s high cost-sharing burdens (deductibles, copays, and premiums). This is why proposals to build off Medicare generally assume significant additions to the program’s benefits, additions that would require federal legislation.

At the same time, Medicaid costs less than its public sector peer, mainly because it pays lower rates to providers, both because of its welfare-based roots and because organized medicine (namely the American Medical Association) has more influence in the Medicare rate-setting process.

There also already is a Medicaid buy-in model: More than 40 states successfully allow the disabled to buy into the program.

The pragmatic political argument for Medicaid
Perhaps the best case for building off Medicaid (as opposed to Medicare) is that that path has a better chance of succeeding politically. This argument is admittedly counterintuitive. After all, providers do complain about low reimbursements, and the stigma of the program’s roots as a welfare program — and its role as a conservative boogeyman — persist. Politicians on both sides of the aisle express more rhetorical support for Medicare.

The key to making a pragmatic political case for Medicaid starts by recognizing that neitherMedicare nor Medicaid is going to replace the nation’s system of employer-sponsored coverage. There is insufficient political appetite for such a sweeping overhaul, whichever federal program is involved. Nor is there cross-national evidence that eliminating private insurance altogether is a worthy goal: Other nations with universal insurance almost always rely on a mix of public and private coverage.

The question then is: Which program is a better fit for an incremental expansion strategy? The clear answer is Medicaid. For more than 30 years, Medicaid has incrementally increased its eligibility criteria while Medicare covers the same group of the elderly and the disabled that it did decades ago.


Medicaid also has the political advantage of dividing its cost among federal, state, and local governments, whereas Medicare is funded entirely by the federal government (and beneficiaries).

Perhaps most crucially, individual states are already free to adopt a Medicaid buy-in approach, so long as they get federal permission to do so. And several state legislatures are considering exploring the Medicaid buy-in strategy. There is no need to wait for a Democratic takeover of the presidency and Congress — both of which are necessary ingredients of a federal Medicare expansion.

In June, the Nevada legislature passed legislation introduced by Assembly member Mike Sprinkle that would have allowed state residents to use ACA tax credits (or other funds) to buy into Medicaid. As mentioned, Gov. Sandoval did ultimately veto the bill, citing the current uncertainty in the ACA insurance markets, but also noted that his veto “does not end the conversation about potential coverage gaps or possible solutions, including Medicaid-like solutions.”

Let’s continue that conversation and see how state-level experimentation plays out. Let’s have the states grapple with the inevitable implementation issues, such as setting premiums, developing an outreach strategy for hard-to-reach populations, and ensuring adequate provider participation.

The way forward
Yes, there are numerous obstacles to a Medicaid buy-in strategy. But it is plausible that moderate politicians on both sides of the political aisle could decide to stabilize the exchanges, preserve the ACA, and encourage innovative states to adopt a Medicaid buy-in approach. Perhaps liberals will come to think of this approach as the American version of the Canadian system, under which each province administers a universal coverage system for its residents — under federal guidelines and with partial federal funding.

Perhaps it’s a strategy that Republican moderates from states like Nevada (Dean Heller), Ohio (Rob Portman), and West Virginia (Shelley Moore Capito) could support, in tandem with their Democratic colleagues?

Perhaps building on Medicaid — not Medicare — could lead, at long last, to a bipartisan American version of affordable coverage for all.

Michael S. Sparer is the chair of the department of health policy and management in Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

The Big Idea is Vox’s home for smart discussion of the most important issues and ideas in politics, science, and culture — typically by outside contributors. If you have an idea for a piece, pitch us at thebigidea@vox.com.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16119292/medicare-for-all-medicaid-health-care-expansion

 

You should submit claims for every hour of labor you perform, adhere to onerous bureaucrat devised reporting and quality standards, aND b forced to accept whatever unelected bureaucrats feel you should be reimbursed for that labor.
Think how much money can be saved and applied to the healthcare of your loved ones

 

Not a dime. Ever heard of a CEO/CFO held financially liable for his company's failures?

 

I like my insurance, I hope the government doesn't rip it away from me.

 

Did it ever occur to you that people dont want some shitty half rate government insurance

 

Let em eat cake........

 

You have no way of supporting that claim.

The private health insurance and health care industry is totally opague.

The only reason you know anything about Medicare or the VA is that they are public agencies and they are accountable to the public.

Private insurance companies, hospitals, and the rest of the US healh care industry is NOT.

My cost comparison is supported by research, unlike your made up claims.

Of course, there is also the well known fact that health care costs in EVERY country with a single payer health insurance system are half what we pay. That is a well established and long standing fact.

I noticed that you danced right past the rest of it.

 

Nonsense

Nope but I've heard of dozens of companies getting their ass sued off and losing to the tune of millions. Ask your self a question. You are CEO joe got rocks do you want a law suit that nets crap loads of bad publicity and and makes millionaires out of clients and lawyers or shell out 70- 80 grand to treat what's wrong with someone? If you answered the former you have no business being a CEO. The point however is that I have recourse with a private company, I have none with the government.

 

Oh yes they are, you don't do right buy your customers you soon don't have any, and you get to deal with lawsuits. Yeah research by people up to their ass in confirmation bias.

 

So our system is this

Free hospital care but if you are concerned about your care you can activate "Ryan's rule" within the hospital itself and you will get an independent review. Still not satisfied? Then go to the healthcare ombudsman. Still not satisfied then there are the courts

Putting the healthcare ombudsman in the mix has reduced frivolous lawsuits

 

That's the truth

 

We did a similar thing here with HMO's but that wasn't good enough here for the democrats who depend on trial lawyer money for much of their funding.

 

Anything would be 100 times better than the Trash Health Care Bill the Senate tried to pass and Trump was dying to sign !!!

 

Worse than Obummercare?

 

The ACA is 20 % cheaper and covers 15 million more Americans than the Senate Health Care Plan. So Yes

 

The intial CBO was way off.... Look at how much the government spends per person on Obummercare. It is not 20% cheaper just because the government heavily subsidizes it.

 

Gee, you do know that we already have a system where the government determines how much healthcare you can have unless of course you are rich.

 

You seem to think Americans are too stupid to figure out a workable universal healthcare plan. Are we inferior to the Europeans, Brits, Australians and Israelis?

 

Tell moonbeam you've figured out a way to do that, because CA tried and failed miserably.

of course, they can't even build a choo choo train these days, so...

 

It won't work state by state.. It needs to be universal.