Healthcare Projected To Cost Near $50 Trillion Over Next Ten Years

[RealDave]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

No, the $35 trillion is the total cost. Medicare For All would replace all current costs.

Wrong!!! That is mathematically impossible.

Sorry Mr Masthematics, but he was right.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

No, the $35 trillion is the total cost. Medicare For All would replace all current costs.

Wrong!!! That is mathematically impossible.

Sorry Mr Masthematics, but he was right.

What do we spend on Medicare and Medicaid on an annual basis today? Can you answer that one, Fake Dave?

 

[dblack]

We're dealing with two distinct, and in some ways contradictory, problems. First, health care costs way more than it should. The idea that a person with average income can't afford to pay for routine health care out-of-pocket is a fundamental dysfunction of the health care market and that needs to be addressed. Second, we have to figure out what to do about people who are too poor to afford basic health care.

Obviously, these problems are related. If we get health care prices under control, there will be less people who are too poor to afford basic health care. If, on the other hand, we ignore health care price inflation, and focus solely on how to supplement people who can't afford health care, health care prices will continue to increase and more and more people will be too poor to afford basic health care.

that was exactly my point.

When no one can afford to pay for it, it must go down in price or people who do that business will starve.

Providers have never had to compete on price. It pisses me the **** off that everybody else has to do it but not doctors and nurses and other providers. They can charge whatever the **** they want and they don't care if nobody can afford it without "insurance."

The best way to make their price go down is to make them compete.

Then, the people who cannot afford it can be taken care of at significantly lower cost...

And… We don't have to turn into a bunch of ******* commies to do it.

But no no no no no no no no no we have got to be commies. These motherfuckers on here wanna be commies all day long. That's all they really care about. **** reason. **** alternatives. We've got to be commies.

I want to go to war and make all these commie motherfuckers leave or take a dirt nap.

.

Your idea of business is so stupid I can't believe you post here thinking you are smart.

If no one bought casrs, the auto companies would make & sell them at a ,loss? Really?

Nope. If no one was buying cars was because the prices were too high, the auto companies would either find away to make cars that cost less or they'd go out of business.

They already make low priced vehicles. If they can't make a profit, they will shut down, not keep selling as your buddy claimed.

You seem to have missed the point. Or perhaps just steered around it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Doctors won't become doctors if they can't make the good money. Nurses won't take the education to become nurses for minimum wage. People won't build hospitals if there is no profit. Patients won't die on the street to force lowet prices. I don't know where you get this crock you are pedaling (no pun intended) but it is dumber than shit.

So, what you're saying is...people won't work for free??? And you want FREE SHIT????

THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT, YOU MOTHERFUCKING IDIOT!!!!

We need a goddamn war.

.

 

[Erinwltr]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

No, the $35 trillion is the total cost. Medicare For All would replace all current costs.

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

Lower administrative costs. Every doctor's office has to employ several people to work out the bazillions of billing codes for each insurer for each procedure.

"Single payer" makes things more streamlined.

Lol

You can't refute his points so you resort to simple minded middle school pics. Good for you. The Orange Anus has taught you well.

 

[DGS49]

As an Old Bastard I can tell you that the greatest growth in healthcare spending will be corporate medical institutions milking the Cash Cow of aging, well-insured Baby Boomers seeking treatment for GROWING OLD. (NOTE: There is no cure for growing old).

Every ache or pain is an excuse to go to a doctor or two, a chiropractor, then a dozen or so visits to a physical therapy clinic. But you are still old. Shit.

And "we" now have the medical ability to extend life FAR BEYOND WHEN IT IS RATIONAL TO DO SO. And that is EXTREMELY expensive. At least 25% of medical spending in any year is spent on extending the lives of Old Bastards who are barely aware of what's going on around them. And that alone is hundreds of billions of dollars in total.

I drive a courtesy bus for "Seniors" and you wouldn't believe how much of the lives of these people is merely going from one doctor to another, one lab to another, one clinic to another...running up charges of hundreds of thousands of dollars EACH, to make such marginal improvements in "health" that they are barely noticeable.

My Sainted Grandmother had a stroke at age 83, and was bedridden and unable to communicate for six months when a second stroke took her from us. The total medical bills were less than $40. Two house calls by the family doctor.

Can you imagine what her bills would total today? Not to mention the fact that they probably would have been able to EXTEND HER MISERABLE LIFE by another period of months - all in a hospital - thus inflating the costs further.

This is where we need to focus, but no politician would have the balls to suggest it. Call it a, "Death with Dignity" movement.

 

[Slade3200]

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

Our current system is one of the most expensive in the world.

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

I’m not against it but I want to understand how it will actually be better. I don’t have much faith in the efficiency of government buerocracies over private industry. So if we could use Medicare, Medicaid or the VA as an example and see those entities kicking ass over the private businesses then that might be a good start.

Medicare is far more efficient than private insurers.

In theory or in practicality? Do the numbers back that up?

 

[DGS49]

The one good thing that "Socialized Medicine" could do in the U.S. is to establish a BUDGET for healthcare costs in each region of the country, every year. This is done in some Canadian provinces.

Once the BUDGET is in place, then Doctors (or whoever) will have to make the hard decisions on extending the life of an incoherent Old Bastard or spending that money on a younger person to improve their lives. Just as important, does it make sense to spend MILLIONS on some premature infant whose BEST PROSPECTS are for a short, painful, sickly life, burning through thousands of dollars a month just to keep her alive?

The financial problem with healthcare as it exists now in the U.S., is that for most of the population there is no limit to what will be spent to keep them alive, regardless of whether it makes any sense.

 

[Dana7360]

We're dealing with two distinct, and in some ways contradictory, problems. First, health care costs way more than it should. The fact that a person with average income can't afford to pay for routine health care out-of-pocket is a fundamental dysfunction of the health care market and that needs to be addressed. Second, we have to figure out what to do about people who are too poor to afford basic health care.

Obviously, these problems are related. If we get health care prices under control, there will be less people who are too poor to afford basic health care. If, on the other hand, we ignore health care price inflation, and focus solely on how to supplement people who can't afford health care, health care prices will continue to increase and more and more people will be too poor to afford basic health care.

In 2009 I was in a near death accident with giant, monster 15 ft waves that fell on me. I was lucky, I ended up in a coma instead of dead.

I was in an ICU room in a hospital in Hawaii for a week. Many different doctors treated me including a cardiologist and breathing teams.

When my family and I got back to the mainland we figured that the bill for that week in the ICU would be astronomical.

However Hawaii had socialized medicine at the time. Everyone was covered either through their employer or through the state.

The result of that was that all medical bills were paid. No medical bill was unpaid then "cost shifted" to those who could pay. That is unpaid bills are put on those who do have insurance or could afford to pay. All people in Hawaii paid for their own health care costs because no bill to a doctor or hospital ever went unpaid.

My ex and I figured that the bill for that week in the ICU would be at least 40 thousand dollars.

The bill from the hospital for the whole thing was 26 thousand dollars.

It was so cheap because there are no bills unpaid that the hospital or doctor had to put on other patients who did have insurance or could pay.

The policy of kicking people off insurance because they got sick, the policy of allowing people to not buy insurance has caused medical costs to be many more times than they should be. Doctors and hospitals can't just write off those charges that weren't paid so they put it on those who could. Which isn't fair and makes everyone's medical bills be many more times the cost than what it should be.

When Reagan reformed health care in the 80s he created a system that allows for those who are sick to be kicked out of the insurance pools but didn't offer any alternative other than an ER. When asked who will pay the bills that aren't paid Reagan said that "cost shifting" those bills to who can pay will be the solution. It was a solution but a very bad one which caused 45 thousands of Americans to die needless early deaths each year and to cause health care costs to skyrocket.

Having everyone covered will bring down the cost of health care a lot for everyone.

 

[Care4all]

The one good thing that "Socialized Medicine" could do in the U.S. is to establish a BUDGET for healthcare costs in each region of the country, every year. This is done in some Canadian provinces.

Once the BUDGET is in place, then Doctors (or whoever) will have to make the hard decisions on extending the life of an incoherent Old Bastard or spending that money on a younger person to improve their lives. Just as important, does it make sense to spend MILLIONS on some premature infant whose BEST PROSPECTS are for a short, painful, sickly life, burning through thousands of dollars a month just to keep her alive?

The financial problem with healthcare as it exists now in the U.S., is that for most of the population there is no limit to what will be spent to keep them alive, regardless of whether it makes any sense.

It makes sense for the person trying to stay alive and for their family...

I'm certain if there were a 20% chance I could beat a deadly cancer if I got certain medical care, I would want to give it a try....

I had a girlfriend who had a very rare cancer, only 6 cases in the USA before her, of which all of these patients died. She was only 39 years old and not ready to die, and her husband and family did not want her to die, and I did not want her to die..... all I could do was pray, pray, and pray and pray and pray...

But the Doctors had another plan...that they gave less than a 5% chance of her surviving the treatment... it was very aggressive, with radiation pellets inserted in to her where the cancer was.... no one could even go in the room she had the treatment in, it was so filled with radiation from it, but the doctors and nurses in protective wear....

Well,

SHE LIVED! She survived the radical treatment and is cancer free, for 10 years now....

I believe it was my prayers that saved her!

the Doctors think it was their radical and never used treatment before, on this cancer....

 

[Andylusion]

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

That's all interesting.....

The one thing you seem to be missing is that Medicare and Medicaid suck.

Medicare and Medicaid reduce costs by flat out not paying the full cost of care. This is why, the Mayo Clinic (ironic since you are the one who cited the Mayo Clinic), has in the past simply refused medicare and medicaid patients.....

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

And even now that they resumed taking them.....

Mayo Clinic will prioritize private insurance patients over Medicare, Medicaid

Citing tighter profit margins, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic recently told his employees that the prestigious health system will prioritize the care of privately insured patients over those on Medicare and Medicaid.

That bold pronouncement by Dr. John Noseworthy — made in a speech to employees late last year — reflects the growing unease among hospital executives who are watching profits shrink due to steady increases in the number of government-insured patients. Medicaid, whose enrollment has increased dramatically under the Affordable Care Act, traditionally pays hospitals significantly less than commercial insurers.
​

All this talk about how having Medicare for all is so great, and private insurance is so bad.... and yet hospitals and clinic refuse medicare and medicaid, not private insurance.

When you make this bogus claim that medicare for all will be cheaper, all of that is based on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full cost of care.

Well if you eliminate private care, Medicare will have to drastically increase how much it pays out, because hospitals and Clinics without private patients making up the loss of money on Medicare patients will end up going all cash, or going out of business.

You system would never work. This is one of the reasons why you keep pushing for medicare for all over the past 2 decades, and the people you elect to office, when confronted with the facts, end up backing away from it.

I'm not pushing for it... I was simply answering the question of why things would be less expensive...

on your post...
-If we all have Medicare, then the Mayo clinic will have no choice, but to accept Medicare patients.

-Prices should come down for hospitals and the Mayo Clinic, with not needing all the billing clerks and negotiators... so the caps on medical procedures won't be as impactful on their bottom line...

is my guess...

I can't think of anything where costs go down once government takes over.
Just look at the cost of higher education once the government took over the student loan industry.
No, I don't see prices coming down....just the opposite

medicare is one of them though that has saved money... mainly because they cap doctors and hospitals, on what they can charge...

Which isn't always a good thing, because it could stifle entrepreneurship in medical devices... and maybe new medicines and who knows what else....?

But that's my point. You praise medicare as saving money.... but it won't. That's my point.

The only reason medicare is saving money.... NOW.... is because doctors and hospitals can cost-shift to private patients.

What you seem to be implying, is that without private patients, that this cost-saving would still happen. No it wouldn't. Without being able to cost-shift to private payers, to cover the cost of gov-patients, hospitals and doctors will go on strike, like we've seen numerous times in France.

Again.... if someone told you they were going to cut your wages dramatically.... would you keep working? No. None of us would. If my company told me "Oh we have a government contract now, so we can only paying X amount"... I would quit and work elsewhere.

Doctors and hospitals are not slaves. They can simply go cash only, and skip government patients completely.

The Rise of Cash-Only Doctors Who Don't Take Insurance - Pros & Cons

Cash-only doctors, also called direct-pay doctors or direct primary care doctors, are medical professionals who have decided to accept only cash for their services. They don’t accept any insurance, including Medicare or Medicaid.
​

There's a growing movement of surgery centers and specialists that list their prices and don't take insurance

Surgery centers and specialists, that are cash only. No Medicare or Medicaid.

Now, the irony is that the one point that we agree on, is that insurance companies have too much negotiating power. I don't have a solution to that.

However, what I do know, is that Medicare is not the solution. Thousands of clinics, doctors, and other health care providers refuse Medicare and especially Medicaid on a routine basis, because it's a terrible program that under-pays for care.

You move to that system, and we will either have national doctor strikes, or we will have cash-only hospitals before long. Medicare only saves money, as long as private patients like you and me, foot the bill through higher insurance premiums and costs.

 

[Care4all]

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

That's all interesting.....

The one thing you seem to be missing is that Medicare and Medicaid suck.

Medicare and Medicaid reduce costs by flat out not paying the full cost of care. This is why, the Mayo Clinic (ironic since you are the one who cited the Mayo Clinic), has in the past simply refused medicare and medicaid patients.....

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

And even now that they resumed taking them.....

Mayo Clinic will prioritize private insurance patients over Medicare, Medicaid

Citing tighter profit margins, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic recently told his employees that the prestigious health system will prioritize the care of privately insured patients over those on Medicare and Medicaid.

That bold pronouncement by Dr. John Noseworthy — made in a speech to employees late last year — reflects the growing unease among hospital executives who are watching profits shrink due to steady increases in the number of government-insured patients. Medicaid, whose enrollment has increased dramatically under the Affordable Care Act, traditionally pays hospitals significantly less than commercial insurers.
​

All this talk about how having Medicare for all is so great, and private insurance is so bad.... and yet hospitals and clinic refuse medicare and medicaid, not private insurance.

When you make this bogus claim that medicare for all will be cheaper, all of that is based on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full cost of care.

Well if you eliminate private care, Medicare will have to drastically increase how much it pays out, because hospitals and Clinics without private patients making up the loss of money on Medicare patients will end up going all cash, or going out of business.

You system would never work. This is one of the reasons why you keep pushing for medicare for all over the past 2 decades, and the people you elect to office, when confronted with the facts, end up backing away from it.

I'm not pushing for it... I was simply answering the question of why things would be less expensive...

on your post...
-If we all have Medicare, then the Mayo clinic will have no choice, but to accept Medicare patients.

-Prices should come down for hospitals and the Mayo Clinic, with not needing all the billing clerks and negotiators... so the caps on medical procedures won't be as impactful on their bottom line...

is my guess...

I can't think of anything where costs go down once government takes over.
Just look at the cost of higher education once the government took over the student loan industry.
No, I don't see prices coming down....just the opposite

medicare is one of them though that has saved money... mainly because they cap doctors and hospitals, on what they can charge...

Which isn't always a good thing, because it could stifle entrepreneurship in medical devices... and maybe new medicines and who knows what else....?

But that's my point. You praise medicare as saving money.... but it won't. That's my point.

The only reason medicare is saving money.... NOW.... is because doctors and hospitals can cost-shift to private patients.

What you seem to be implying, is that without private patients, that this cost-saving would still happen. No it wouldn't. Without being able to cost-shift to private payers, to cover the cost of gov-patients, hospitals and doctors will go on strike, like we've seen numerous times in France.

Again.... if someone told you they were going to cut your wages dramatically.... would you keep working? No. None of us would. If my company told me "Oh we have a government contract now, so we can only paying X amount"... I would quit and work elsewhere.

Doctors and hospitals are not slaves. They can simply go cash only, and skip government patients completely.

The Rise of Cash-Only Doctors Who Don't Take Insurance - Pros & Cons

Cash-only doctors, also called direct-pay doctors or direct primary care doctors, are medical professionals who have decided to accept only cash for their services. They don’t accept any insurance, including Medicare or Medicaid.
​

There's a growing movement of surgery centers and specialists that list their prices and don't take insurance

Surgery centers and specialists, that are cash only. No Medicare or Medicaid.

Now, the irony is that the one point that we agree on, is that insurance companies have too much negotiating power. I don't have a solution to that.

However, what I do know, is that Medicare is not the solution. Thousands of clinics, doctors, and other health care providers refuse Medicare and especially Medicaid on a routine basis, because it's a terrible program that under-pays for care.

You move to that system, and we will either have national doctor strikes, or we will have cash-only hospitals before long. Medicare only saves money, as long as private patients like you and me, foot the bill through higher insurance premiums and costs.

When I was in Massachusetts, I had so called insurance with Fallon....

It was a very large group of Doctors of every specialty who joined together, to form their own health care system... Fallon Health Care, outside of the Health Insurance Industry, because they were sick and tired of dealing with Insurance companies and their patients not getting the care that they felt they needed, without a major brawl with Insurance companies and insurance companies, taking their cut.

It was the best health care, I ever had, in all my decades of health insurance... My Doctor, was English speaking as her natural tongue, and was the best doctor I had ever had and still have ever had....

 

[Meister]

Our Government is always playing catch up to Medicare fraud. Never enough oversight to nip it in the bud.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday said they dismantled one of the largest health care fraud schemes ever investigated by the FBI, charging 24 people in a $1.2 billion alleged scam involving telemedicine and durable medical equipment companies.

As part of the complex operation, doctors got kickbacks for prescribing unneeded back, shoulder, wrist and knee braces to elderly and disabled patients and charging the government's Medicare program, the Department of Justice said.

The accused "concocted an elaborate scheme to exploit the U.S. health care system by targeting Medicare beneficiaries, paying doctors for prescriptions, paying kickbacks and bribes, and in turn selling these prescriptions to DME companies to ensure that they could line their pockets," IRS special agent Matthew Line said, according to Tut Underwood of South Carolina Public Radio.
Healthcare Projected To Cost Near $50 Trillion Over Next Ten Years

This is just one example.....and who pays for it? We the people do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They already had the surgery and now won’t pay. So the surgeon charges those who will pay more to make up for it.

That's not entirely true.

Sometimes the hospital will eat the cost, and write it off as a tax deduction.

But usually the sell it to a debt collect to recoup the cost.

And other times, the people eventually pay. I went to the hospital without insurance, and I got this nifty thing called "a bill". Then I paid the bill. I paid $50 to $100 a month over 3 years, and paid it all.

But this line of reasoning is always baffling to me.

You are complaining because some people who refuse to pay the bill, end up causing the hospital to charge everyone else more money.
That is the essenses of your complain.

How is that worse than national health care, where now absolutely NO ONE pays the their own bill, and the entire cost is poured out on the tax payers?

Why do you think that in every country with government-health care, that the middle class pays 50% in taxes? They are paying for everyone who doesn't pay their bill.

So which is worse, you paying your own health insurance premiums? Or 50% in taxes?

You really think people are paying $25,000 a year in health insurance premiums? I don't think so. Average health insurance premiums yearly, is just about $3,000 a year.

5% of the median wage is $2,500. Sanders dishonestly proposed a 6% tax increase on the middle class. That wouldn't cover it.

One of the big universal care groups proposed an estimated 12% tax to cover universal health care in the US.
That would be $6,000 a year in taxes, which is double what health insurance currently costs.

But in reality, that wouldn't be enough to cover it either. Again, we know this from Europe. 5-year-survival rates are lower in Europe, and yet they have much higher taxes to cover health care expenses than we do.

That is the reality.

Every single payer system I have seen is much lower cost than ours.

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the $35 trillion is the total cost. Medicare For All would replace all current costs.

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

Our current system is one of the most expensive in the world.

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

That's all interesting.....

The one thing you seem to be missing is that Medicare and Medicaid suck.

Medicare and Medicaid reduce costs by flat out not paying the full cost of care. This is why, the Mayo Clinic (ironic since you are the one who cited the Mayo Clinic), has in the past simply refused medicare and medicaid patients.....

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

And even now that they resumed taking them.....

Mayo Clinic will prioritize private insurance patients over Medicare, Medicaid

Citing tighter profit margins, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic recently told his employees that the prestigious health system will prioritize the care of privately insured patients over those on Medicare and Medicaid.

That bold pronouncement by Dr. John Noseworthy — made in a speech to employees late last year — reflects the growing unease among hospital executives who are watching profits shrink due to steady increases in the number of government-insured patients. Medicaid, whose enrollment has increased dramatically under the Affordable Care Act, traditionally pays hospitals significantly less than commercial insurers.
​

All this talk about how having Medicare for all is so great, and private insurance is so bad.... and yet hospitals and clinic refuse medicare and medicaid, not private insurance.

When you make this bogus claim that medicare for all will be cheaper, all of that is based on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full cost of care.

Well if you eliminate private care, Medicare will have to drastically increase how much it pays out, because hospitals and Clinics without private patients making up the loss of money on Medicare patients will end up going all cash, or going out of business.

You system would never work. This is one of the reasons why you keep pushing for medicare for all over the past 2 decades, and the people you elect to office, when confronted with the facts, end up backing away from it.

Even medical practices which will take Medicare and Medicaid patients seriously limit the number of them they will take on. because they have to fill out the bulk of their patient slots with privately-insured people who can make up the deficits for the government's lowball payment mandates.

 

[Slade3200]

That's not entirely true.

Sometimes the hospital will eat the cost, and write it off as a tax deduction.

But usually the sell it to a debt collect to recoup the cost.

And other times, the people eventually pay. I went to the hospital without insurance, and I got this nifty thing called "a bill". Then I paid the bill. I paid $50 to $100 a month over 3 years, and paid it all.

But this line of reasoning is always baffling to me.

You are complaining because some people who refuse to pay the bill, end up causing the hospital to charge everyone else more money.
That is the essenses of your complain.

How is that worse than national health care, where now absolutely NO ONE pays the their own bill, and the entire cost is poured out on the tax payers?

Why do you think that in every country with government-health care, that the middle class pays 50% in taxes? They are paying for everyone who doesn't pay their bill.

So which is worse, you paying your own health insurance premiums? Or 50% in taxes?

You really think people are paying $25,000 a year in health insurance premiums? I don't think so. Average health insurance premiums yearly, is just about $3,000 a year.

5% of the median wage is $2,500. Sanders dishonestly proposed a 6% tax increase on the middle class. That wouldn't cover it.

One of the big universal care groups proposed an estimated 12% tax to cover universal health care in the US.
That would be $6,000 a year in taxes, which is double what health insurance currently costs.

But in reality, that wouldn't be enough to cover it either. Again, we know this from Europe. 5-year-survival rates are lower in Europe, and yet they have much higher taxes to cover health care expenses than we do.

That is the reality.

Every single payer system I have seen is much lower cost than ours.

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

 

[Care4all]

Our Government is always playing catch up to Medicare fraud. Never enough oversight to nip it in the bud.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday said they dismantled one of the largest health care fraud schemes ever investigated by the FBI, charging 24 people in a $1.2 billion alleged scam involving telemedicine and durable medical equipment companies.

As part of the complex operation, doctors got kickbacks for prescribing unneeded back, shoulder, wrist and knee braces to elderly and disabled patients and charging the government's Medicare program, the Department of Justice said.

The accused "concocted an elaborate scheme to exploit the U.S. health care system by targeting Medicare beneficiaries, paying doctors for prescriptions, paying kickbacks and bribes, and in turn selling these prescriptions to DME companies to ensure that they could line their pockets," IRS special agent Matthew Line said, according to Tut Underwood of South Carolina Public Radio.
Healthcare Projected To Cost Near $50 Trillion Over Next Ten Years

This is just one example.....and who pays for it? We the people do.

Rick Scot's health care company had the largest medicare scam and theft in our U.S. history, around 4 billion... yet he became a governor and now senator....? Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, I think it's time to spend some money to get a lot more people in oversight, watchdogs.... the little spent on people being watchdogs would pale in comparison to the theft that takes place...

Insurance companies are also subject to huge amounts in fraud as well...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our current system is one of the most expensive in the world.

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

That's all interesting.....

The one thing you seem to be missing is that Medicare and Medicaid suck.

Medicare and Medicaid reduce costs by flat out not paying the full cost of care. This is why, the Mayo Clinic (ironic since you are the one who cited the Mayo Clinic), has in the past simply refused medicare and medicaid patients.....

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

And even now that they resumed taking them.....

Mayo Clinic will prioritize private insurance patients over Medicare, Medicaid

Citing tighter profit margins, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic recently told his employees that the prestigious health system will prioritize the care of privately insured patients over those on Medicare and Medicaid.

That bold pronouncement by Dr. John Noseworthy — made in a speech to employees late last year — reflects the growing unease among hospital executives who are watching profits shrink due to steady increases in the number of government-insured patients. Medicaid, whose enrollment has increased dramatically under the Affordable Care Act, traditionally pays hospitals significantly less than commercial insurers.
​

All this talk about how having Medicare for all is so great, and private insurance is so bad.... and yet hospitals and clinic refuse medicare and medicaid, not private insurance.

When you make this bogus claim that medicare for all will be cheaper, all of that is based on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full cost of care.

Well if you eliminate private care, Medicare will have to drastically increase how much it pays out, because hospitals and Clinics without private patients making up the loss of money on Medicare patients will end up going all cash, or going out of business.

You system would never work. This is one of the reasons why you keep pushing for medicare for all over the past 2 decades, and the people you elect to office, when confronted with the facts, end up backing away from it.

I'm not pushing for it... I was simply answering the question of why things would be less expensive...

on your post...
-If we all have Medicare, then the Mayo clinic will have no choice, but to accept Medicare patients.

-Prices should come down for hospitals and the Mayo Clinic, with not needing all the billing clerks and negotiators... so the caps on medical procedures won't be as impactful on their bottom line...

is my guess...

No, that's not how it works. The Mayo Clinic is not going to accept patients that they lose money on, just because you say they will have to. NO, they are not slaves, and they don't have to.

Do you not see how ridiculous it is to even claim that? They are refusing Medicare patients because they lose money on them.

If there are no private insurance patients, does that magically make money losing patients profitable?

This is like saying that if your job cut your wage to $1/hour... that you would continue working there if all jobs were $1 an hour. No you would not. Why would you keep working where you starve? You would either go into business for yourself, or you would move somewhere else, where you can earn enough money to live.

The Mayo Clinic is not just going to say... oh well I guess we'll go bankrupt! Bring in the Medicare patients!

-Prices should come down for hospitals and the Mayo Clinic, with not needing all the billing clerks and negotiators... so the caps on medical procedures won't be as impactful on their bottom line...
​

No lol...... Again... if this was true..... then the Mayo Clinic would have eliminate private insurance patients, and be accepting only Medicare patients now.

There is nothing forcing hospitals and clinics to take private patients, and nothing forcing them to stop taking Medicare patients.

If any of what you said was even remotely true, then the Mayo Clinic and any other health care provider, would be refusing to take private insurance, and only taking Medicare.

Do you see that happening ANYWHERE?? Because according to you, they would save tons of money! And be making this huge profit! Seriously, if I can earn a ton more money by saving all this cash from having 'clerks and negotiators', then I would instantly lay off all those people, end private insurance, and only take Medicare TODAY.

But you don't see that. Not only do you not see that, but you see the exact opposite.

Why? Because you are wrong. Your claims.... are false. It's that simple. You don't know what you are talking about. You have bought into your left-wing ideology, and have substituted your false talking points, for reality.

That's funny, thinking practices will require fewer billers and coders if the government is the only payer. Medicare, Medicaid, and TriCare are among the most complicated and annoying billng specialties there are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

Our current system is one of the most expensive in the world.

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

I’m not against it but I want to understand how it will actually be better. I don’t have much faith in the efficiency of government buerocracies over private industry. So if we could use Medicare, Medicaid or the VA as an example and see those entities kicking ass over the private businesses then that might be a good start.

Medicare is far more efficient than private insurers.

Really? In what regard?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Pseudocons scoff at the projected cost of "Medicare For All" being $35 trillion over the next ten years.

However, under our current system, healthcare in America will rack up an astounding $47 trillion over the next ten years!

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...ealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf

Health spending is projected to grow 0.8 percentage point faster than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year over the 2018-27 period; as a result, the health share of GDP is expected to rise from 17.9 percent in 2017 to 19.4 percent by 2027.

<snip>

National health spending is projected to have grown 4.4 percent in 2018, up from 3.9 percent growth in 2017, and to have reached $3.6 trillion.

<snip>

National health expenditures are projected to grow 4.8 percent in 2019, up from 4.4 percent growth in 2018, and to reach $3.8 trillion.

<snip>

For 2020-27, national health spending growth is projected to average 5.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in 2019, and reach nearly $6.0 trillion by 2027. With nominal GDP growth expected to average 4.6 percent during this period, the health share of GDP is expected to increase to 19.4 percent by 2027, from 17.8 percent in 2019.


Notice the incredibly optimistic projection that GDP will grow an average of 4.6 percent.

Pennies compared to what Europeans pay.

What we need to do is keep litigation and not being able to buy insurance across State lines. That’ll work.