We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[Ray From Cleveland]

simple wa

Fuck the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

 

[Flopper]

simple wa

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

 

[Flopper]

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

We are all wasting our time anyway, if we do not also talk about price controls.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

We are discussing public health insurance, not government ownership of all hospitals. Try to stay focused.

 

[dblack]

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

We are discussing public health insurance, not government ownership of all hospitals. Try to stay focused.

Yes. Let's focus. If the government controls health insurance it will have control of hospitals and health care. They won't need literal ownership. If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend this away, they hold it up as a feature - because it gives government the de facto power to dictate lower prices for health care. It also gives them the power to dictate pretty much anything else they want in regards to health care in the same way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. If the government controls health insurance the will have control of hospitals and health care.

False. They will still accept money from anyone, and people will still buy supplemental insurance. So we can toss that nonsense out immediately.

If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend

False, obviously. All that one has to do is look at the amount of indigent care and medical bankruptcies we have right now to see that people will still get treated, even if they can't pay their bills.

Our problem with access is mostly due to people who don't want to go into bad debt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

We are discussing public health insurance, not government ownership of all hospitals. Try to stay focused.

Yes. Let's focus. If the government controls health insurance it will have control of hospitals and health care. They won't need literal ownership. If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend this away, they hold it up as a feature - because it gives government the de facto power to dictate lower prices for health care. It also gives them the power to dictate pretty much anything else they want in regards to health care in the same way.

Two things that the left doesn't address with their proposal. First, there are good doctors and bad doctors. There are good hospitals and not so good ones. If government is running the show, we would all want the good doctors and facilities, wouldn't we? And since that would be completely impossible to do, how would government go about deciding who gets what?

Secondly, since government only pays about 2/3 of the cost for medical services, and the price is upped to recoup that lost money from private pay and insured patients, what happens when it's government paying all? Are medical personnel just going to have to work for much less money?

 

[dblack]

. If the government controls health insurance the will have control of hospitals and health care.

False. They will still accept money from anyone, and people will still buy supplemental insurance. So we can toss that nonsense out immediately.

If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend

False, obviously. All that one has to do is look at the amount of indigent care and medical bankruptcies we have right now to see that people will still get treated, even if they can't pay their bills.

I have no idea what you're going on about here. My point is that if the state is the primary source of income for doctors and hospitals, doctors and hospitals will have to play ball with the state. M4A would radically expand the government's de facto power to regulate health care, because government will be the primary purchaser of health care. All they'd have to do to effectively "ban" a procedure (for all but wealthy people), is refuse to pay for it, say it's not covered.

It would be a huge boon to the lobbying industry, however.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

how would government go about deciding who gets what?

Same way private insurance does now. That's an overwrought fantasy you have, there.

Secondly, since government only pays about 2/3 of the cost for medical services,

And private payers pay much more than private insurers. Also, indigent care costs are part of the inflated costs. Why did you leave out these important facts? Your math is useless without them.

 

[MAGAman]

Why can't we have both? Private insurance for those who want/can afford it?

Because Americans can't pay for their plans and 1/2 of Mexico's and Central America's.

 

[basquebromance]

Pete Buttigieg did a full heel turn away from his own support of Medicare for All to describe it as an attack on freedom...that's why he lost, my friends!

 

[Flopper]

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

They being Medicare most certainly do have a monopoly now. Medicare or Medicaid is the primary health insurance for 75% of the retired over 65. Most employer private insurance and Medigap is secondary insurance. MediAdvantage plans are jointly funded by Medicare and a private insurance which operate under Medicare coverage and reimbursement rules.

If there actually existed a free market in private insurance, then it might actually serve some purpose in controlling Medicare. However, the opposite is the reality today. Private insurance bases it's coverage on Medicare and Medicaid coverage which is based on recommendations from healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment and service providers, and beneficiaries. Although rates are negotiated between private insurance and providers, the Medicare reimbursement rates set the standard. Whenever Medicare reimbursement rates increase, providers re-negotiate their contracts with insurance companies so rates don't vary much between Medicare and insurance companies.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

You're a funny guy ray. Corporations are so anti monopoly.

The payer is single dumbass.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

We are discussing public health insurance, not government ownership of all hospitals. Try to stay focused.

Yes. Let's focus. If the government controls health insurance it will have control of hospitals and health care. They won't need literal ownership. If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend this away, they hold it up as a feature - because it gives government the de facto power to dictate lower prices for health care. It also gives them the power to dictate pretty much anything else they want in regards to health care in the same way.

Two things that the left doesn't address with their proposal. First, there are good doctors and bad doctors. There are good hospitals and not so good ones. If government is running the show, we would all want the good doctors and facilities, wouldn't we? And since that would be completely impossible to do, how would government go about deciding who gets what?

Secondly, since government only pays about 2/3 of the cost for medical services, and the price is upped to recoup that lost money from private pay and insured patients, what happens when it's government paying all? Are medical personnel just going to have to work for much less money?

No one's weeding out bad anything now. The market, let the buyer beware, and lose your mortgage over illness maybe.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

We are discussing public health insurance, not government ownership of all hospitals. Try to stay focused.

Yes. Let's focus. If the government controls health insurance it will have control of hospitals and health care. They won't need literal ownership. If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend this away, they hold it up as a feature - because it gives government the de facto power to dictate lower prices for health care. It also gives them the power to dictate pretty much anything else they want in regards to health care in the same way.

Govt. WE the people.

Corporations. Shareholders.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.

Having worked in that business for ten years, I can tell you that it's government who makes billing so complicated and costly. One place I worked at for five years, we had meetings every Monday morning. Every other one of those Mondays had to do with new government requirements for billing either for government or private insurance patients. It used to drive the office women crazy.

Insurance companies are quite aware of billing complexity. Their claim is that people use their insurance for nickel and dime claims, instead of just major claims. So you see your doctor, the bill is a hundred bucks or so, and off to the paperwork arena for the fight.

The solution to that problem would be mandatory medical savings accounts. Say 1% of your gross pay deducted from your check just like the taxes you pay. You would choose the private bank or institution that handles that account. Then when you go to the hospital or ER, you pay by swiping your MSA card just like a credit card. The bill is paid in full on the spot which would lower their cost, you wouldn't need as many people working at the doctors or hospital, it would keep insurance companies out of the mix so less expense to them, and most people would not miss 1% of their pay.

Assuming we maintain a multi payer system which is mostly likely, MSAs are great idea. However, I don't see the logic in making MSAs mandatory when the insurance itself it not mandatory.

Most people think there are just two payers in the healthcare system, the patient and the insurance company. Whatever the insurance company doesn't pay, the patient pays. What could be simpler. This is a huge oversimplification and inaccurate. Eight in 10 people on traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental insurance, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medigap, and Medicaid. Having multiple plans is also common with non-retires, VA, Medicaid, Medicare, temporary insurance, and multiple employers. In case of accidents, we have to add in car insurance companies, and other accident insurance.

The first problem in a multi payer system is determining who will be the primary, and secondary and then determining how benefits are coordinated between payers. What makes the situation more complicated is that all the insurance companies have different rules that vary by state. Medicaid has different rules and reimbursement rates that also vary also by state. Also Medicaid coverage outside of the state varies.

In a true single payer system, there is no coordination of benefits, no primary and secondary payers, and no patient billing. There is only one payer whose rules and coverage is the same for all patients in every state, and that's Medicare. Eliminating thousands of insurance payers and millions of individual payers will save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Could be, if you want to be a slave to the government the rest of your life.

I just applied for my gun license renewal today. It expires on the 11th of this month. The soonest appointment I could get is April 27th. This is one of many examples why not to hand the government our healthcare. If our licenses were ran by a private industry, they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would hire more people, they would reorganize; get rid of red tape that need not be involved. They would send out notifications months ago about the backup. Something........

Instead, they do nothing because it's run by government. You can't get an appointment when you want it? We are almost two months behind? Too bad, you lose. I don't want to see my healthcare ran the same way. When you eliminate competition, you eliminate the need to service the people properly. If my health insurance company is not meeting my expectations, I can always get another one. If a doctor or hospital is not meeting my expectations, I can always find another one.

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

My experience mirrors yours, thank you.

 

[dblack]

Yes. Let's focus. If the government controls health insurance it will have control of hospitals and health care. They won't need literal ownership. If the government is paying, people will have to do what the government says or they won't get paid. When liberals aren't trying to pretend this away, they hold it up as a feature - because it gives government the de facto power to dictate lower prices for health care. It also gives them the power to dictate pretty much anything else they want in regards to health care in the same way.

Govt. WE the people.

Corporations. Shareholders.

So you don't seem to be disputing my point. Medicare for All - or most any other kind of single-payer scheme, would radically increase the government's power over heath care. Others here are denying that.