The scandel of Obamacare

[Mac1958]

The Republicans saw that health care was a big issue during the 2008 election campaign and chose to offer nothing clear.

They already support the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system. All they had to do was drop that silly, arbitrary 65 age requirement and expand it to all.

Poof. A good, already-functional and effective blend of public foundational coverage and free market competition and innovation. There it is.

But no. The GOP should look in the mirror. Okay, so here we are. Enjoy.
.

If the Republicans expanded Medicare to all, most of the health facilities would have to close, then what would we do?

You do realize that the government underpays our health providers, don't you? In many cases, they only pay 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Providers are able to recoup those losses on private pay and private insurance patients. That's why when you see a clinic or hospital close, it's usually in lower income areas where most of the patients are on Medicare or Medicaid.

PHYSICIANS REFUSE MEDICARE PATIENTS

Of course I realize that, and provider contracts would have to be improved across the board, and no doubt that would come from an increase in the Medicare tax.

Clearly mitigating that, however, are two factors:

First, a significant majority of our health care expenditures take place after age 65, so expanding it to all would not be linear in terms of costs. Younger people, while still covered, would need to access health care FAR less than seniors, as they already do. The primary difference in their case would be the fact that they would have far better access to preventive and diagnostic care, increasing the likelihood that more minor diseases could be caught earlier, saving money in the long run.

Second, this would take a massive monkey off the back of American employers, both in terms of premium sharing and administration. I'm pro-business; I'd like to give our businesses some breathing room in an intensely and increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Surely you know that you and I have already been paying for the health care of others for decades. Since I have to do that - and no doubt that would continue (including if the GOP got its way) - I would rather do so in an environment where they can have better access to preventive, diagnostic and basic care to save money in the long run.

I'm a cheap bastard. If I'm going to pay for the health care of others, I want to do it in the smartest, most effective and most cost-efficient way possible.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republicans saw that health care was a big issue during the 2008 election campaign and chose to offer nothing clear.

They already support the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system. All they had to do was drop that silly, arbitrary 65 age requirement and expand it to all.

Poof. A good, already-functional and effective blend of public foundational coverage and free market competition and innovation. There it is.

But no. The GOP should look in the mirror. Okay, so here we are. Enjoy.
.

If the Republicans expanded Medicare to all, most of the health facilities would have to close, then what would we do?

You do realize that the government underpays our health providers, don't you? In many cases, they only pay 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Providers are able to recoup those losses on private pay and private insurance patients. That's why when you see a clinic or hospital close, it's usually in lower income areas where most of the patients are on Medicare or Medicaid.

PHYSICIANS REFUSE MEDICARE PATIENTS

Of course I realize that, and provider contracts would have to be improved across the board, and no doubt that would come from an increase in the Medicare tax.

Clearly mitigating that, however, are two factors:

First, a significant majority of our health care expenditures take place after age 65, so expanding it to all would not be linear in terms of costs. Younger people, while still covered, would need to access health care FAR less than seniors, as they already do. The primary difference in their case would be the fact that they would have far better access to preventive and diagnostic care, increasing the likelihood that more minor diseases could be caught earlier, saving money in the long run.

Second, this would take a massive monkey off the back of American employers, both in terms of premium sharing and administration. I'm pro-business; I'd like to give our businesses some breathing room in an intensely and increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Surely you know that you and I have already been paying for the health care of others for decades. Since I have to do that - and no doubt that would continue (including if the GOP got its way) - I would rather do so in an environment where they can have better access to preventive, diagnostic and basic care to save money in the long run.

I'm a cheap bastard. If I'm going to pay for the health care of others, I want to do it in the smartest, most effective and most cost-efficient way possible.
.

If that's what you're looking for, don't expect government to be the most cost efficient way to handle healthcare. Just look at the healthcare systems they operate now. Medicaid and Medicare get ripped off by the billions every year. The last healthcare scandal involved the VA, and it's still not working right. Obama care is a nightmare to sign up for and use even after you pay the premium.

Government healthcare doesn't work properly and can't work. It's just the wrong way to handle the problem. The first thing that needs to be done is to find a way to lower the cost of healthcare, and then decide how we are going to pay for it.

 

[Mac1958]

The Republicans saw that health care was a big issue during the 2008 election campaign and chose to offer nothing clear.

They already support the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system. All they had to do was drop that silly, arbitrary 65 age requirement and expand it to all.

Poof. A good, already-functional and effective blend of public foundational coverage and free market competition and innovation. There it is.

But no. The GOP should look in the mirror. Okay, so here we are. Enjoy.
.

If the Republicans expanded Medicare to all, most of the health facilities would have to close, then what would we do?

You do realize that the government underpays our health providers, don't you? In many cases, they only pay 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Providers are able to recoup those losses on private pay and private insurance patients. That's why when you see a clinic or hospital close, it's usually in lower income areas where most of the patients are on Medicare or Medicaid.

PHYSICIANS REFUSE MEDICARE PATIENTS

Of course I realize that, and provider contracts would have to be improved across the board, and no doubt that would come from an increase in the Medicare tax.

Clearly mitigating that, however, are two factors:

First, a significant majority of our health care expenditures take place after age 65, so expanding it to all would not be linear in terms of costs. Younger people, while still covered, would need to access health care FAR less than seniors, as they already do. The primary difference in their case would be the fact that they would have far better access to preventive and diagnostic care, increasing the likelihood that more minor diseases could be caught earlier, saving money in the long run.

Second, this would take a massive monkey off the back of American employers, both in terms of premium sharing and administration. I'm pro-business; I'd like to give our businesses some breathing room in an intensely and increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Surely you know that you and I have already been paying for the health care of others for decades. Since I have to do that - and no doubt that would continue (including if the GOP got its way) - I would rather do so in an environment where they can have better access to preventive, diagnostic and basic care to save money in the long run.

I'm a cheap bastard. If I'm going to pay for the health care of others, I want to do it in the smartest, most effective and most cost-efficient way possible.
.

If that's what you're looking for, don't expect government to be the most cost efficient way to handle healthcare. Just look at the healthcare systems they operate now. Medicaid and Medicare get ripped off by the billions every year. The last healthcare scandal involved the VA, and it's still not working right. Obama care is a nightmare to sign up for and use even after you pay the premium.

Government healthcare doesn't work properly and can't work. It's just the wrong way to handle the problem. The first thing that needs to be done is to find a way to lower the cost of healthcare, and then decide how we are going to pay for it.

Sure, there is fraud and waste and abuse, no argument, and we certainly need to seriously and soberly address them. And I'd even agree that it sure as hell won't go away with the plan I describe.

But unless someone magically comes up with another way to improve access, catch disease earlier, maintain (at least most of the) quality, eliminate the massive 7-headed joke of a "system" we have now, and retain an element of free market competition and innovation, I don't see anything close to this right now. The GOP plan does not accomplish the above, neither does the ACA.
.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I sound like someone who's amused at how many people in this forum are unaffected by the PPACA, but get all upset about it anyway.

Typical liberal tactic.

"First they came for the gypsies, but since I wasn't a gypsy I remained silent....."

First They Came - Pastor Martin Niemoller | Holocaust Memorial Day Trust

Don't these people ever come up with any new propaganda?