Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only 19% of Medicare beneficiaries pay the 20% coinsurance. Private insurance makes up most of the difference. No plan approved by congress is going to allow people with income and financial resources to get totally free healthcare. Neither democrats nor republicans would approve such a plan and that means there will still be a place for insurance even with single payer.An Aspirin in a Hospital cost like $30. Not because some Insurance company is milking the profits. But because part of the cost of the Aspirin is providing healthcare to people who don't pay what it cost. Medicare and Medicaid recipients, illegal immigrants and the general poor. Those who pay, pay more because of those who don't pay.Taking the profit motive out of providing health insurance to people doesn't mean students will stop studying life sciences -- can you show me anywhere among the other developed countries in the world where people have just stopped learning about organic chemistry??
Why do you feel it is necessary for private insurance companies to make billions for their shareholders at the expense of the consumers is the only way we can insure kids will grow up to want to study biology or chemistry?
You are correct. Right now, with Medicare only choosing to pay 80% of the cost of care, that means private insurance is getting charged more to take up the difference. If there's no private insurance, then what? Is the expense of providing the services going to go down just because the government decides it's not going to pay that much?
Also consider that most states use insurance companies to provide coverage for their Medicaid clients and 35% of all Medicare beneficiaries have assigned their Medicare benefits to an insurance company that provides a MedAdvantage insurance plan. No matter what happens insurance companies are going to be around for a long long time.
Only 19% of Medicare beneficiaries pay the 20% coinsurance. Private insurance makes up most of the difference. No plan approved by congress is going to allow people with income and financial resources to get totally free healthcare. Neither democrats nor republicans would approve such a plan and that means there will still be a place for insurance even with single payer.An Aspirin in a Hospital cost like $30. Not because some Insurance company is milking the profits. But because part of the cost of the Aspirin is providing healthcare to people who don't pay what it cost. Medicare and Medicaid recipients, illegal immigrants and the general poor. Those who pay, pay more because of those who don't pay.Taking the profit motive out of providing health insurance to people doesn't mean students will stop studying life sciences -- can you show me anywhere among the other developed countries in the world where people have just stopped learning about organic chemistry??
Why do you feel it is necessary for private insurance companies to make billions for their shareholders at the expense of the consumers is the only way we can insure kids will grow up to want to study biology or chemistry?
You are correct. Right now, with Medicare only choosing to pay 80% of the cost of care, that means private insurance is getting charged more to take up the difference. If there's no private insurance, then what? Is the expense of providing the services going to go down just because the government decides it's not going to pay that much?
Also consider that most states use insurance companies to provide coverage for their Medicaid clients and 35% of all Medicare beneficiaries have assigned their Medicare benefits to an insurance company that provides a MedAdvantage insurance plan. No matter what happens insurance companies are going to be around for a long long time.
There is some truth in what you are saying but there's more to it. A few years ago, fear of what the ACA would do to reimbursements, caused some doctors to stop taking Medicare but that seems to have dried up. Today 91% of all doctors accept Medicare, 98% of specialist and 87% of primary care doctors. Although it's true, some doctors limit there Medicare patients, the number of doctor that accept Medicare is so large that in all but the very smallest communities getting an appointment is not a problem.As I said, long waits for treatment are usually due to limits put on the patient by their insurance company. That's not a problem with Medicare because almost all doctors take Medicare.Yeah I didn't have all of the details...but I've been hearing stories of super long wait times for appointments...Not knowing the details, I'm going to guess that she isn't getting to see a local doctor in a timely manner because her insurance company's network limits her choices locally. By contrast, 91% of all doctors in the country accept Medicare. That breaks down to 87% of family doctors and 99% of all specialist.Hope your dad is okay dude....He’s in Hackensack hospital in New Jersey. Was suffering from nausea and wasn’t able to eat for a few days so we took him to the hospital. Now my question is that if we implement a single payer system doesn’t conventional wisdom tell us our hospitals will be even more overcrowded and of even less quality than they are now?
I took my uncle to his cardiologist on Monday...while I was waiting a women walked in and said she had eye trauma and her doctor told her to see a heart doctor immediately because her eye could have been a development of a serious heart issue....they told her she would have to wait for 5 weeks or drive 6 hours to LA....she left crying probably wondering how she was going to drive that far with one eye.....if I were king of the US...I would have Pelosi and Obama drawn and quartered on national TV....and then I would strip congress and the senate of their government health care coverage and put them on Obamacare....these careless people disgust me....
My daughter had see a neurosurgeon and her HMO insurance gave her 3 choices within an 100 mile radius 2 were booked up for 5 months. The over one offered her an appointment with their PA with a 3 month wait. I'll bet there are at least 25 neurosurgeons in that area and probably all of them accept Medicare.
Increasing numbers of doctors don't take Medicare, and every doctor who takes Medicare only takes so many patients who have it, and then fills out the rest of their patient slots with private insurance. They also, to the extent that it's possible, try to maintain that payer mix when they're scheduling appointments. Obviously, they aren't going to let you know that if they can help it. But when they tell you what the next available appointment is, there's a possibility it's the next available appointment for your payer.
I was agreeing with you and explaining why insurance companies are going to remain an important part of healthcareOnly 19% of Medicare beneficiaries pay the 20% coinsurance. Private insurance makes up most of the difference. No plan approved by congress is going to allow people with income and financial resources to get totally free healthcare. Neither democrats nor republicans would approve such a plan and that means there will still be a place for insurance even with single payer.An Aspirin in a Hospital cost like $30. Not because some Insurance company is milking the profits. But because part of the cost of the Aspirin is providing healthcare to people who don't pay what it cost. Medicare and Medicaid recipients, illegal immigrants and the general poor. Those who pay, pay more because of those who don't pay.Taking the profit motive out of providing health insurance to people doesn't mean students will stop studying life sciences -- can you show me anywhere among the other developed countries in the world where people have just stopped learning about organic chemistry??
Why do you feel it is necessary for private insurance companies to make billions for their shareholders at the expense of the consumers is the only way we can insure kids will grow up to want to study biology or chemistry?
You are correct. Right now, with Medicare only choosing to pay 80% of the cost of care, that means private insurance is getting charged more to take up the difference. If there's no private insurance, then what? Is the expense of providing the services going to go down just because the government decides it's not going to pay that much?
Also consider that most states use insurance companies to provide coverage for their Medicaid clients and 35% of all Medicare beneficiaries have assigned their Medicare benefits to an insurance company that provides a MedAdvantage insurance plan. No matter what happens insurance companies are going to be around for a long long time.
Never suggested otherwise.
I agree it needs changes. No matter what is done with healthcare, most of what is in the ACA will remain at least for a number of years. Both republicans and democrats witnessed the problems in implementing a major change to the healthcare system. I doubt that either party will try that again. I believe any major changes in healthcare are going to be phased in over a number years so I would not expect any radical changes.The ACA needs to be reworked...just admit it.....its fucked up....
Bullcrap...I don't believe that for a second....lmao....There have been long waits for most specialists for more than the obama years. I waited 6 months for a colonoscopy back in 2000
liar....I really don't give a fuck what you believe I stated a fact.
Surveys of beneficiaries of Medicare other government insurance, and employee sponsored insurance shows a high degree of satisfaction with Medicare. Those with employee provided insurance show the lowest degree of satisfaction. If we are going to make any major changes in our healthcare system it makes sense to go in a direction that people are most satisfied with and that's Medicare.Only 19% of Medicare beneficiaries pay the 20% coinsurance. Private insurance makes up most of the difference. No plan approved by congress is going to allow people with income and financial resources to get totally free healthcare. Neither democrats nor republicans would approve such a plan and that means there will still be a place for insurance even with single payer.An Aspirin in a Hospital cost like $30. Not because some Insurance company is milking the profits. But because part of the cost of the Aspirin is providing healthcare to people who don't pay what it cost. Medicare and Medicaid recipients, illegal immigrants and the general poor. Those who pay, pay more because of those who don't pay.Taking the profit motive out of providing health insurance to people doesn't mean students will stop studying life sciences -- can you show me anywhere among the other developed countries in the world where people have just stopped learning about organic chemistry??
Why do you feel it is necessary for private insurance companies to make billions for their shareholders at the expense of the consumers is the only way we can insure kids will grow up to want to study biology or chemistry?
You are correct. Right now, with Medicare only choosing to pay 80% of the cost of care, that means private insurance is getting charged more to take up the difference. If there's no private insurance, then what? Is the expense of providing the services going to go down just because the government decides it's not going to pay that much?
Also consider that most states use insurance companies to provide coverage for their Medicaid clients and 35% of all Medicare beneficiaries have assigned their Medicare benefits to an insurance company that provides a MedAdvantage insurance plan. No matter what happens insurance companies are going to be around for a long long time.
Exactly. People who think "Medicare for All" will remove insurance companies from the equation are kidding themselves. All it does is remove the consumer's ability to say "no" to insurance companies. It's the individual mandate with even less choice for the consumer. The government gives your money to the insurance companies directly.
That train left the station about 50 or 60 years ago and it ain't coming back because transiting back to such as system would wreck both the healthcare system, the insurance industry, and leave millions of people without health insurance. It would be repealed with any change in goverment.People should be responsible for paying for their own doctor bills. If Uncle Sugar is paying for them, there's a loss of freedom and quality of service somewhere. The government mucks up everything they touch, kind of a reverse-Midas thing.
Obamacare was designed to be a crushing tax burden, that is all. It was an attack on America.
That train left the station about 50 or 60 years ago and it ain't coming back because transiting back to such as system would wreck both the healthcare system, the insurance industry, and leave millions of people without health insurance. It would be repealed with any change in goverment.People should be responsible for paying for their own doctor bills. If Uncle Sugar is paying for them, there's a loss of freedom and quality of service somewhere. The government mucks up everything they touch, kind of a reverse-Midas thing.
Obamacare was designed to be a crushing tax burden, that is all. It was an attack on America.
And exactly what is right?That train left the station about 50 or 60 years ago and it ain't coming back because transiting back to such as system would wreck both the healthcare system, the insurance industry, and leave millions of people without health insurance. It would be repealed with any change in goverment.People should be responsible for paying for their own doctor bills. If Uncle Sugar is paying for them, there's a loss of freedom and quality of service somewhere. The government mucks up everything they touch, kind of a reverse-Midas thing.
Obamacare was designed to be a crushing tax burden, that is all. It was an attack on America.
Maybe. Maybe not. Past mistakes are no reason to just give up. We should try to do the right thing regardless of predictions of gloom and doom.
He’s in Hackensack hospital in New Jersey. Was suffering from nausea and wasn’t able to eat for a few days so we took him to the hospital. Now my question is that if we implement a single payer system doesn’t conventional wisdom tell us our hospitals will be even more overcrowded and of even less quality than they are now?
He’s in Hackensack hospital in New Jersey. Was suffering from nausea and wasn’t able to eat for a few days so we took him to the hospital. Now my question is that if we implement a single payer system doesn’t conventional wisdom tell us our hospitals will be even more overcrowded and of even less quality than they are now?
And exactly what is right?That train left the station about 50 or 60 years ago and it ain't coming back because transiting back to such as system would wreck both the healthcare system, the insurance industry, and leave millions of people without health insurance. It would be repealed with any change in goverment.People should be responsible for paying for their own doctor bills. If Uncle Sugar is paying for them, there's a loss of freedom and quality of service somewhere. The government mucks up everything they touch, kind of a reverse-Midas thing.
Obamacare was designed to be a crushing tax burden, that is all. It was an attack on America.
Maybe. Maybe not. Past mistakes are no reason to just give up. We should try to do the right thing regardless of predictions of gloom and doom.
He’s in Hackensack hospital in New Jersey. Was suffering from nausea and wasn’t able to eat for a few days so we took him to the hospital. Now my question is that if we implement a single payer system doesn’t conventional wisdom tell us our hospitals will be even more overcrowded and of even less quality than they are now?
Nope, but making ERs the go to place for people without medical insurance to see a family practice, would be even worse. ERs are bad enough now, could you imagine how much worse that could be?
I don't think that the problem is nation wide but rather a local problem. Is spending a few extra hours in the ER instead of a hospital room that important. In the ER, you will be monitored more closely than in most hospital rooms and if you have a serious problem, you're going to get emergency care must faster. I've been in situations where I have had to wait 10 hours for hospital room. This happens occasional in many hospitals. Just as hotels occasional are full, so are hospitals. However, hospitals can't just put a sign out that says no vacancy. They have to take people whether they have room or not. You are most likely to run into problems in small rural hospitals with less than 100 rooms. Many of these places are fighting to survive.He’s in Hackensack hospital in New Jersey. Was suffering from nausea and wasn’t able to eat for a few days so we took him to the hospital. Now my question is that if we implement a single payer system doesn’t conventional wisdom tell us our hospitals will be even more overcrowded and of even less quality than they are now?
Nope, but making ERs the go to place for people without medical insurance to see a family practice, would be even worse. ERs are bad enough now, could you imagine how much worse that could be?
It’s not just about ERs, the hospitals are overburdened. People who need impatient care are being left to rot in the E.R. hallways.
