healthcare

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by kaylas1, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. kaylas1
    Offline

    kaylas1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    in what year was mitt romney insurance accepted? do they still have it ? if so it must be good. we have the same here and all of the states have it. we have people with 80-85% insurance and then we take care of the rest.
     
  2. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    You just might want to do your own research with Romneycare. Whatever I tell you I doubt you would believe.

    Having said that....there's a big difference between the feds mandating each person to have insurance and an individual state deciding whether to have it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. merrill
    Offline

    merrill VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +92
    This is the real solution for the USA.

    Improved Medicare Single Payer Insurance for All is one substantial part of the solution.

    - Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides
    healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The
    structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

    - Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing
    and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies.
    Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on
    administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

    - Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide
    personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing
    would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you choose
    your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

    - State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of
    healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the
    cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and
    local tax burdens.

    - Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare
    services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be
    no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include
    not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental,
    vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

    - Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No
    longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

    - No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would
    eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit
    before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and
    force people into bankruptcy.

    - Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare.
    Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated
    prices for prescription drugs.

    Healthcare-NOW! - Organizing for a national, single-payer healthcare system.
     
  4. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    Yeah...improved. :lol:
    You're talking about our government....they really don't get much right, on or under budget. But, keep with your pie in the sky, merrill.
     
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    We can eliminate some cost of the HC delivery system with a single payer universal system.

    Much of the cost of private insurance's administration, all its costs advertising and of course of profits. That is, we are informed about 25% of all private HC costs.

    But those efficiences alone doesn't really solve the problem of rising costs.

    The rising costs of HC (relative to all other things) that are not a result of private HC insurance delivery system inefficiencies, those rising costs that come BECAUSE HC keeps getting better (and more expensive, too) and the population grows older and in the long run, therefore uses more HC in their longer lifetimes.

    It really is a shame that this probtlem became politicized, because as a result we have failed to do the sensible things we need to do.

    Single Payer works like this:

    Every citizen has it, they pay for it, or if they're too poor they're given it. The administration and payments system is socialized.

    But the HC providers are for profits doctors and hospitals, clinics and so forth.

    That way we have the best of both worlds.

    We have the efficiency of a single payer system, and the efficiencies (such as they are, which isn't very much) of private HC providers, too.
     

Share This Page