Medicare for all would save $450 billion and 68,000 lives every year.

[DamnDude]

Hmmm...
2002, 2020, still the same shit different day. The arguments are valid.
My case is simple pain management. Back fusions and follow up surgeries that had me limited to assisting aids and what not. VA's answers were to throw pills at me and have me come back every so often. Tried to get into pain management with va... Nah. And never given a reason as to why. It's their call.
Not good enough. People want to talk about being over medicated? VA's classic management is better living through chemical engineering. The saying goes like this "va, giving you a second chance to die for your country." Screw that shit. Tricare offered and I took their route and now am off the opioids va crammed down my throat.
2002 talking points.... You know very little of what you speak of.

I know my BCBS went from a $500 deductable for full coverage on my family in 1995
to a $5000 deductable by 2005.

Veterans for Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia

You're gonna have to break that link down for me Barney style.... It's nothing more than Vets for Bernie info, and not really anything I want and or need.

On the other hand, we can trade anecdotal stories from here until we grow weary of it all.... A cousin of mine is a truck driver, lives in Iowa, supported his family well... Paid his employee sponsored health insurance and kept his family well taken care of. Wife 4 kids etc etc.. Along come the ACA and his cost skyrocket... In the end, what used to cost him less than 200 a month for him and his family now cost over 500 for him and his wife, kids were put on state sponsored Hawkeye care with the never meetable deductible.
Go on now.
Come back at me with another

 

[the other mike]

Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.
Although I can see some real advantages to Medicare for All but I don't if will reduce and here's why.
The studies assumes:

• We reduce re-reimbursement rates for hospital, doctors and clinical serves.
• Reduce pharmaceutical prices by negotiations
• Reduction in Overhead
• Reducing Fraud
• And of course eliminating the health insurance sector from economy.

Here are just few of problems:
Cutting reimbursement rates to most of the healthcare industry which employs 16 million people which certainly have consequences. First being reduction in services.
The most expense drugs are brand name drugs, partially the one of a kind variety. You can only negotiate prices if their alternatives.
Health Insurance industry which employs about 700,000 people

Assuming there would be a transitional period of a few years, employees would be compensated and retrained.in other fields.

 

[Flopper]

'Medicare for all would save $450 billion and 68,000 lives every year'

It will not cost a dime. It will pay for itself. It will educe the cost of premiums and if you like your doctor / plan you can keep them......

Oh wait, that was BarryCare.

Under the 'Great Socialist Take-Over-Care', your private health insurance plans will be outlawed and you branded a criminal if you have / attempt to keep any.

You will be herded like sheep into the New Communist/Socialist Democrat-ruled health care-rationing program which will provide less care than that given to illegals and far less than your new Masters ensure they and their families have.

It's going to be great....for the self-proclaimed Rulers.

There's nothing wrong with our current healthcare system except that it is too expense for most people. There are a number of fixes to Obamacare that could be made which lower premiums, deductibles, and copays. First, the premium cost ratio between younger and older Americans needs to be changed to lower the cost for younger adults. This will end up lowering premiums for all by having more healthy young people in the insurance pool. Second government needs to spend money to encourage the young to carry insurance. Insurance companies should be allow to offer policies with significant 1st year discounts to young people. Democrats need to realize that tort reform can reduce medical costs without seriously damaging people's right to seek damage for medical blunders. Medicare should be allowed to negotiate drug prices. Finally, subsidies should be raised for the middle class. There are a number of other ways we can reduce the cost of healthcare without going to single payer or breaking the back of Treasury.

The reason why do don't fix the system is strictly politically. Democrats are split between believing Obamacare should not be touched and junking it for single payer. Republican refuse to do anything that would make Obamacare better because as long as the cost of healthcare remains un-affordable for the middle class they can blame democrats.

 

[Flopper]

Nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.
We become the shareholders instead of the Wall Street cigar class.

Nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry would be huge mistake. Basic drug discovery research is funded primarily by government and by philanthropic organizations. However later-stages of development is funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies or venture capitalists. Such investments are very risky and without a strong profit motive it would not happen. Secondly, drug companies are almost all international. Most of the research and manufacturing is done outside the US.

 

[Flopper]

Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.
Although I can see some real advantages to Medicare for All but I don't if will reduce and here's why.
The studies assumes:

• We reduce re-reimbursement rates for hospital, doctors and clinical serves.
• Reduce pharmaceutical prices by negotiations
• Reduction in Overhead
• Reducing Fraud
• And of course eliminating the health insurance sector from economy.

Here are just few of problems:
Cutting reimbursement rates to most of the healthcare industry which employs 16 million people which certainly have consequences. First being reduction in services.
The most expense drugs are brand name drugs, partially the one of a kind variety. You can only negotiate prices if their alternatives.
Health Insurance industry which employs about 700,000 people

Assuming there would be a transitional period of a few years, employees would be compensated and retrained.in other fields.

It would take a lot longer than a few years.

 

[Flopper]

Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.
Although I can see some real advantages to Medicare for All but I don't if will reduce and here's why.
The studies assumes:

• We reduce re-reimbursement rates for hospital, doctors and clinical serves.
• Reduce pharmaceutical prices by negotiations
• Reduction in Overhead
• Reducing Fraud
• And of course eliminating the health insurance sector from economy.

Here are just few of problems:
Cutting reimbursement rates to most of the healthcare industry which employs 16 million people which certainly have consequences. First being reduction in services.
The most expense drugs are brand name drugs, partially the one of a kind variety. You can only negotiate prices if their alternatives.
Health Insurance industry which employs about 700,000 people

Assuming there would be a transitional period of a few years, employees would be compensated and retrained.in other fields.

It would take a lot longer than a few years.

The best Medicare for All Proposals I have read is a slow migration to Medicare beginning by dropping the age eligibility gradually over several decades. Simply removing older Americans under 65 would fix the problems with Obamacare because older Americans are responsible for most of the healthcare cost. Increases in government cost would be spread over many years and the speed of migration could be adjusted by congress as needed. Best of all it is very simple plan that would not require a lot changes. Republicans and Democrats would be more likely to buy into this plan that other Medicare for All plans.

 

[the other mike]

[
The best Medicare for All Proposals I have read is a slow migration to Medicare beginning by dropping the age eligibility gradually over several decades. Simply removing older Americans under 65 would fix the problems with Obamacare because older Americans are responsible for most of the healthcare cost. Increases in government cost would be spread over many years and the speed of migration could be adjusted by congress as needed. Best of all it is very simple plan that would not require a lot changes. Republicans and Democrats would be more likely to buy into this plan that other Medicare for All plans.

Start with covering birth to 18 and then 50 and older, and each year graduaqlly move to include everyone.

And there are ways to offset the tax codes so that the top 20% would not be paying for everyone , such as nationalizing a profit-sharing program with the drug companies for example.

It would take a lot longer than a few years.

The point being there's a middle ground where there has to be some
compromises made. It could take 10 years or more, but ideally should have been implemented decades ago.

One idea I had was- first a national health-awareness campaign--and to increase local family practices, lessen the time it takes to get a doctor's degree to 2-4 years instead of 4-8.which would greatly reduce the cost of ER visits and expensive specialists, again focusing on prevention and cures instead of the way it is now - profiting from sickness.

We've got a multi-conglomerate of industries and institutions basically poisoning us at the front door with chemicals and drugs, then charging us to leave when we're sick. It's insane and immoral when people are dying and going bankrupt.

 

[the other mike]

Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’

Cut out the middle man.

 

[WillowTree]

 

[Flopper]

[
The best Medicare for All Proposals I have read is a slow migration to Medicare beginning by dropping the age eligibility gradually over several decades. Simply removing older Americans under 65 would fix the problems with Obamacare because older Americans are responsible for most of the healthcare cost. Increases in government cost would be spread over many years and the speed of migration could be adjusted by congress as needed. Best of all it is very simple plan that would not require a lot changes. Republicans and Democrats would be more likely to buy into this plan that other Medicare for All plans.

Start with covering birth to 18 and then 50 and older, and each year graduaqlly move to include everyone.

And there are ways to offset the tax codes so that the top 20% would not be paying for everyone , such as nationalizing a profit-sharing program with the drug companies for example.

It would take a lot longer than a few years.

The point being there's a middle ground where there has to be some
compromises made. It could take 10 years or more, but ideally should have been implemented decades ago.

One idea I had was- first a national health-awareness campaign--and to increase local family practices, lessen the time it takes to get a doctor's degree to 2-4 years instead of 4-8.which would greatly reduce the cost of ER visits and expensive specialists, again focusing on prevention and cures instead of the way it is now - profiting from sickness.

We've got a multi-conglomerate of industries and institutions basically poisoning us at the front door with chemicals and drugs, then charging us to leave when we're sick. It's insane and immoral when people are dying and going bankrupt.

There is plenty of room for intelligent compromise on both sides of the issue. However, the extreme polarization on both sides makes it almost impossible. Compromise is how Washington works. However to a large segment of the population compromise has become a dirty word.

 

[the other mike]

"My advice to voters is that if politicians tell you they oppose reforming the health care system because they want to preserve your 'choice' as a consumer, they don't know what they're talking about or they're willfully ignoring the truth," Potter wrote in the op-ed. "Either way, the insurance industry is delighted. I would know."

'I owe the American people an apology': A former healthcare executive says he's sorry for devising the biggest argument against Medicare for All | Markets Insider

 

[the other mike]

There is plenty of room for intelligent compromise on both sides of the issue. However, the extreme polarization on both sides makes it almost impossible. Compromise is how Washington works. However to a large segment of the population compromise has become a dirty word.

Don't forget the MSM factor.....who pays their bills ? By and large the drug companies, and they love things just the way they are--- Rachel, Anderson and Tucker all show the same pharmaceutical ads.

 

[Andylusion]

I call bullshit....Medicare costs in excess of 10X what it was projected -counting inflation- when it was set forth...This boondoggle will be no different....In fact, I defy anyone to cite the first time a gubmint program came in under budget and delivered a superior product.

They purposefully jack up the costs with spiking drug prices, expensive equipment in elderly care--every way they can to cook the books up.

Bottom line is --- get rid of the insurance middle man- over a 10 year transition, increase good health awareness and diet, focus on prevention rather than medication and unnecessary surgery....a comprehensive restructuring of the whole system .

Sure. And while you’re at why don’t you end racism.

If healthcare is free, many people will be less focused on prevention. How many people would bother changing the oil in their car if somebody else paid for any repairs due to lack of oil?

Dream on!

Please list the name of an American what died because they could not afford insulin.

You can buy enough insulin for an entire year, for just $300. That's one pay check working full time for McDonald's as a burger flipper.

You people make up so much crap.....

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

 

[depotoo]

Man, you really are financially inept and so are they.

 

[the other mike]

Another concern I haven't heard mentioned anywhere....if you eliminate
heath insurance, would it make other insurance go up ?

Free health care would be good, but if you have to pay
$20K a year for homeowners and auto insurance, what's the difference ?

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[Oddball]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

I call bullshit.


Name for us the last -no, the FIRST- time that costs for idiotic gubmint programs or projects came in under projections.

 

[Sunni Man]

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

^^^^ Winner of the Stupidest Statement of the Month. .. .

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Oh poppycock and nonsense. Did these studies come from Mexico City? It sounds like it.