Medicare for all???

What I mean by individual responsibility is that I do think that people should pay a modest premium out of their own money to help pay for insurance. Also, I don't believe that public insurance should cover 100% of everything, just like private insurance doesn't. So people should have to pay at least some of it themselves.

I agree that we need a private insurance option. People should be free to get supplemental private insurance, or replace their public insurance with a private one with the help of a voucher.

 

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. There are more kids going into medicine than ever before, in my country of long term public healthcare. And public hospitals are the gold standard here, in which almost all medical professionals prefer to work (as consultants or employees). Public hospitals have zero difficulty getting staff, and they get the best of the best for the above reason. You want a Professor doing your diagnostics? Go to a public hospital. You want the very latest, cutting edge technology and facilities? Go to a public hospital.

 

Medical care for everyone at the expense of everyone else.

 

We do pay. We pay a 2% tax levy.

And the system does cover everything, as long as it's medically necessary.

We are free to use private insurance, but it's not usually taken as a 'supplement' .. because it would double up on something we're already paying for. You'd be surprised how many people take it just because it makes them feel a bit more 'special'. It's quite incredible, actually.

 

We all pay for it, actually. 2% tax levy.

 

If it's optional, then those not taking it will be paying for those who do. That's not in any way equitable.

It must be mandatory to be in the system, but optional to use the system.

 

We all pay 2% to sustain 17% of our economy? Doesn't add up.

 

That's what public healthcare is - insurance. Very little care is actually provided by the Govt outside of public hospitals. Almost all is provided by private practitioners.

 

Our public healthcare system is funded via a compulsory 2% tax levy.

I have no idea what you mean by 17%, sorry. I'm not American.

 

Keep in mind that the government does not provide the actual services. Only the VA is run by the government. CMS, who is the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, contracts out private carriers to administer those special needs plans. More than likely, even under a single payer system, this model is still the most likely one to be followed.

 

Not there. Don't care. Good luck with that.

 

Well as I often hear, real communism has never been tried. So maybe no one is.

 

The alarming part of Medicare for all is the democrats want to run our healthcare system and they cannot even count votes! Think about that.

 

The irony is that they mean something else entirely, when they say that. The mean it hasn't been tried in the MAGICAL way, where everyone becomes magically free, comfortable, safe and well fed ... just 'cause.

The real thing would horrify them.

 

Excuse me, I should have said 93000 instead of 93010, but that changes nothing in regards to the overall topic. It says $10-20, which is a paltry sum. Your plumber is paid more for the joint compound he uses to seal a joint. His assertion that Medicare rates are often essentially break even or less is absolutely correct. By the time they pay for the machine itself, the additional disposable leads for that specific test, the 5 minute time frame for the person performing the test, the additional time frame for interpreting the test and the time spent in billing......they have lost money on that procedure.

 

not the same at all, one has government doctors, the other does not

health care is what you get when you go to a doctor, insurance is what helps pay the bill (sometimes)

 

Because of the ACA, there has also been a boom in Urgent Care facilities popping up all over the place over the past 7 years. This has helped bring down the amount of emergency room visits for minor acute illnesses.

 

Mine is free. But I have a copay for medications. Do you?

 

I'm not sure that's the case. There had been a boom of urgent care facilities long before 7 years, or the ACA. The real boom in the last 7 years is the rise of stand alone emergency rooms.

 

That is why I suggest a voucher. You can't get out of paying your payroll tax, but you can use a voucher to get private insurance. If we allowed people to avoid the payroll tax, then all the rich people would just opt out and we would lose a lot of revenue.

 

I never claimed they made money off Medicare. I just pointed out, correctly, that it wasn’t a $5 payment.

 

That's why rationing will take place.

Ezekiel Emanuel's Complete Lives System.
Read about it. He was tapped by Obama lead the
Task force on healthcare resource allocation under the ACA .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated

 

100 people.
98 live 80 years.
2 live 1 day
Average life expectancy 78.4 years.

A Small percent difference in infant mortallity due to reporting can make a substantial difference in life expectancy.

A small percent difference in murder and drug overdose rates can make a substantial difference in life expectancy.

An ethnic group totalling 15% of the population, with genetic predisposition to much substantially higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease and renal failure, at a young age, can substantially alter life expectancy.

A significant percentage of the population with obesity, and tobacco induced disease can significantly alter life expectancy.

None of these can be attributed to the healthcare system

 

You did not read FAW's post, and should not refute it unless you do. The procedure described in detail, including number of leads attached, the actual taking of the EKG. The $3 to $10 covers the technician's time and effort, the collection of the data, and the cost of the EKG machine. The technician taking the EKG never interprets the results but only gives it to the doctor. The doctor gets reimbursed at the specialist office visit rate of which reading the EKG is just a small part. In my case Medicare would have paid the doctor/clinic $102 or 80% of the Medicare approved amount of $128, which is about half of the doctor's normal billing of $266.

 

The example is easy. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE MEDICAL PROCEDURE CODES WERE CHANGED AND "ENHANCED" UNDER ACA to the extent that many training sessions -- most by private enterprises who saw the need -- were offered to train the medical providers in the totally new codes. This was all done so that the government could collect very detailed and specific medical information on patients, and to be more discriminating on which and for how much they would eventually allow coverage. Though I don't know how successful all this has been from the government's perspective.