What Would You Think of a Healthcare Plan That Would...

[Flopper]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

 

[Oddball]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

 

[Flopper]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Since a free market in healthcare would delivery the best healthcare to the wealthy and no healthcare to those who had nothing, it would certainly result in reduction of benefits. So it would not meet the requirements of system I described.

 

[Oddball]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Since a free market in healthcare would delivery the best healthcare to the wealthy and no healthcare to those who had nothing, it would certainly result in reduction of benefits. So it would not meet the requirements of system I described.

Lying demagogue.

In 1943, it cost the equivalent of $500 to have a hospital birth....The costs of all other medical expenses would drop through the floor were medical services returned to the free market....The best examples of this are Lasik and elective cosmetic surgery.

 

[Flopper]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Since a free market in healthcare would delivery the best healthcare to the wealthy and no healthcare to those who had nothing, it would certainly result in reduction of benefits. So it would not meet the requirements of system I described.

Lying demagogue.

In 1943, it cost the equivalent of $500 to have a hospital birth....The costs of all other medical expenses would drop through the floor were medical services returned to the free market....The best examples of this are Lasik and elective cosmetic surgery.

And infant mortality was 5 times as great as it is today. Techniques and drug developed over the last 60 years have significantly reduced both the danger of child birth and the pain.

The 1943 cost of child of birth, $500 is $7346 in today's dollars. The national average cost of childbirth today is $10,808. I wonder how many women today would chose the 1943 childbirth with 5 times the risk of death to the baby, more danger and pain for the mother to save $3462. I suspect about zero.

 

[Oddball]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Since a free market in healthcare would delivery the best healthcare to the wealthy and no healthcare to those who had nothing, it would certainly result in reduction of benefits. So it would not meet the requirements of system I described.

Lying demagogue.

In 1943, it cost the equivalent of $500 to have a hospital birth....The costs of all other medical expenses would drop through the floor were medical services returned to the free market....The best examples of this are Lasik and elective cosmetic surgery.

And infant mortality was 5 times as great as it is today. Techniques and drug developed over the last 60 years have significantly reduced both the danger of child birth and the pain.

The 1943 cost of child of birth, $500 is $7346 in today's dollars. The national average cost of childbirth today is $10,808. I wonder how many women today would chose the 1943 childbirth with 5 times the risk of death to the baby, more danger and pain for the mother to save $3462. I suspect about zero.

No, fool...The cost in today's dollars is around $500...Try reading for comprehension.

In any event, all of today's astronomical costs are under the context of massive gubmint intervention in the marketplace...Is all that supposed to be evidence of success?...An indicator that even more meddling tinkering is called for?

 

[Flopper]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Since a free market in healthcare would delivery the best healthcare to the wealthy and no healthcare to those who had nothing, it would certainly result in reduction of benefits. So it would not meet the requirements of system I described.

Lying demagogue.

In 1943, it cost the equivalent of $500 to have a hospital birth....The costs of all other medical expenses would drop through the floor were medical services returned to the free market....The best examples of this are Lasik and elective cosmetic surgery.

And infant mortality was 5 times as great as it is today. Techniques and drug developed over the last 60 years have significantly reduced both the danger of child birth and the pain.

The 1943 cost of child of birth, $500 is $7346 in today's dollars. The national average cost of childbirth today is $10,808. I wonder how many women today would chose the 1943 childbirth with 5 times the risk of death to the baby, more danger and pain for the mother to save $3462. I suspect about zero.

No, fool...The cost in today's dollars is around $500...Try reading for comprehension.

In any event, all of today's astronomical costs are under the context of massive gubmint intervention in the marketplace...Is all that supposed to be evidence of success?...An indicator that even more meddling tinkering is called for?

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Since a free market in healthcare would delivery the best healthcare to the wealthy and no healthcare to those who had nothing, it would certainly result in reduction of benefits. So it would not meet the requirements of system I described.

Lying demagogue.

In 1943, it cost the equivalent of $500 to have a hospital birth....The costs of all other medical expenses would drop through the floor were medical services returned to the free market....The best examples of this are Lasik and elective cosmetic surgery.

And infant mortality was 5 times as great as it is today. Techniques and drug developed over the last 60 years have significantly reduced both the danger of child birth and the pain.

The 1943 cost of child of birth, $500 is $7346 in today's dollars. The national average cost of childbirth today is $10,808. I wonder how many women today would chose the 1943 childbirth with 5 times the risk of death to the baby, more danger and pain for the mother to save $3462. I suspect about zero.

No, fool...The cost in today's dollars is around $500...Try reading for comprehension.

In any event, all of today's astronomical costs are under the context of massive gubmint intervention in the marketplace...Is all that supposed to be evidence of success?...An indicator that even more meddling tinkering is called for?

For a birth in a hospital to cost $500 today doctors and anesthesiologist would have to be making less than plumbers, nurses minimum wage and hospital room the cost of hotel rooms, delivery rooms would be free as well as electronic fetal monitoring, ultrasonography, blood pressure screening, maternal/fetal pulse oximetry, and infusion pumps, all other diagnostic tests as well as all specialist required. Of course the salaries would be so low in healthcare, there would be no doctors or nurses.

 

[dblack]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

 

[TNHarley]

Get the govt out of healthcare. Not only is it unconstitutional, it also caused our healthcare cost crisis.
It blows my mind how people want to give more power to the people that screwed it up in the first place!

 

[dblack]

Get the govt out of healthcare. Not only is it unconstitutional, it also caused our healthcare cost crisis.
It blows my mind how people want to give more power to the people that screwed it up in the first place!

Yeah. I don't get it either. It's like they want everything to be a matter of politics - everything subject to majority rule.

 

[debbiedowner]

New Models May Tweak how Medicare Works, but Beneficiaries Must Remain the Priority - Medicare Rights Blog

The five new payment model options are divided into two paths. The first is a set of two Primary Care First Models that will pay primary care practices through what is called “capitation”—a set fee per person, per month to provide care. Historically, capitation-type payment arrangements can create problematic incentives that encourage providers to stint on care. For example, since practices may be able to maximize profits by delivering fewer services, they may be tempted to withhold necessary care. But the new Primary Care First models may reduce some of this incentive by including flatto fees for primary care visits, and by offering providers bonus payments for keeping their patients healthy. Practices that could not keep costs down or keep patients healthy and at home would be at risk of losing some of their profits.


How about this:

Scrap ACA altogether and Medicaid replace with: Would save over a trillion just in 2019 alone.

Lowering Medicare age to age 55 with a higher premium than 65 year olds decreasing every year to age 65 at which time falling under what a 65 year old would pay at that time. If one could not afford their Medicare premium then create state (not fed) grants to help them pay their premium.

Anyone under 55 will not be guaranteed insurance and apply as we all used to and go through medical underwriting, should bring rates down for the healthy if there are no mandates. If one was declined for pre existing conditions only then they could buy into Medicare for a reasonable premium rated by state and county they reside.

If one has certain body parts excluded from coverage by a rider either mandate an insurance company must drop that rider in two years or let them buy into Medicare at a reasonable rate.

 

[dblack]

New Models May Tweak how Medicare Works, but Beneficiaries Must Remain the Priority - Medicare Rights Blog

The five new payment model options are divided into two paths. The first is a set of two Primary Care First Models that will pay primary care practices through what is called “capitation”—a set fee per person, per month to provide care. Historically, capitation-type payment arrangements can create problematic incentives that encourage providers to stint on care. For example, since practices may be able to maximize profits by delivering fewer services, they may be tempted to withhold necessary care. But the new Primary Care First models may reduce some of this incentive by including flatto fees for primary care visits, and by offering providers bonus payments for keeping their patients healthy. Practices that could not keep costs down or keep patients healthy and at home would be at risk of losing some of their profits.


How about this:

Scrap ACA altogether and Medicaid replace with: Would save over a trillion just in 2019 alone.

Lowering Medicare age to age 55 with a higher premium than 65 year olds decreasing every year to age 65 at which time falling under what a 65 year old would pay at that time. If one could not afford their Medicare premium then create state (not fed) grants to help them pay their premium.

Anyone under 55 will not be guaranteed insurance and apply as we all used to and go through medical underwriting, should bring rates down for the healthy if there are no mandates. If one was declined for pre existing conditions only then they could buy into Medicare for a reasonable premium rated by state and county they reside.

If one has certain body parts excluded from coverage by a rider either mandate an insurance company must drop that rider in two years or let them buy into Medicare at a reasonable rate.

I like the first part (scrapping ACA). But your plan doesn't seem to change much of import.

We need to be clear what goal of health care reform is before we can get anywhere. Until we get consensus on that, there's not much point in chasing our tails with half-assed legislation that will simply be mutilated with the next shift of the political wind.

 

[debbiedowner]

New Models May Tweak how Medicare Works, but Beneficiaries Must Remain the Priority - Medicare Rights Blog

The five new payment model options are divided into two paths. The first is a set of two Primary Care First Models that will pay primary care practices through what is called “capitation”—a set fee per person, per month to provide care. Historically, capitation-type payment arrangements can create problematic incentives that encourage providers to stint on care. For example, since practices may be able to maximize profits by delivering fewer services, they may be tempted to withhold necessary care. But the new Primary Care First models may reduce some of this incentive by including flatto fees for primary care visits, and by offering providers bonus payments for keeping their patients healthy. Practices that could not keep costs down or keep patients healthy and at home would be at risk of losing some of their profits.


How about this:

Scrap ACA altogether and Medicaid replace with: Would save over a trillion just in 2019 alone.

Lowering Medicare age to age 55 with a higher premium than 65 year olds decreasing every year to age 65 at which time falling under what a 65 year old would pay at that time. If one could not afford their Medicare premium then create state (not fed) grants to help them pay their premium.

Anyone under 55 will not be guaranteed insurance and apply as we all used to and go through medical underwriting, should bring rates down for the healthy if there are no mandates. If one was declined for pre existing conditions only then they could buy into Medicare for a reasonable premium rated by state and county they reside.

If one has certain body parts excluded from coverage by a rider either mandate an insurance company must drop that rider in two years or let them buy into Medicare at a reasonable rate.

I like the first part (scrapping ACA). But your plan doesn't seem to change much of import.

We need to be clear what goal of health care reform is before we can get anywhere. Until we get consensus on that, there's not much point in chasing our tails with half-assed legislation that will simply be mutilated with the next shift of the political wind.

In the end it doesn't really matter politicians are going to do what politicians do or rather the lobbyists they have not worked for the people for as long as I can remember and probably never.

 

[Flopper]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

 

[dblack]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

Ahh, I see. "Adds" - nice. Anyway, with your proposal there will still be mandates. Just so we're clear.

 

[Flopper]

New Models May Tweak how Medicare Works, but Beneficiaries Must Remain the Priority - Medicare Rights Blog

The five new payment model options are divided into two paths. The first is a set of two Primary Care First Models that will pay primary care practices through what is called “capitation”—a set fee per person, per month to provide care. Historically, capitation-type payment arrangements can create problematic incentives that encourage providers to stint on care. For example, since practices may be able to maximize profits by delivering fewer services, they may be tempted to withhold necessary care. But the new Primary Care First models may reduce some of this incentive by including flatto fees for primary care visits, and by offering providers bonus payments for keeping their patients healthy. Practices that could not keep costs down or keep patients healthy and at home would be at risk of losing some of their profits.


How about this:

Scrap ACA altogether and Medicaid replace with: Would save over a trillion just in 2019 alone.

Lowering Medicare age to age 55 with a higher premium than 65 year olds decreasing every year to age 65 at which time falling under what a 65 year old would pay at that time. If one could not afford their Medicare premium then create state (not fed) grants to help them pay their premium.

Anyone under 55 will not be guaranteed insurance and apply as we all used to and go through medical underwriting, should bring rates down for the healthy if there are no mandates. If one was declined for pre existing conditions only then they could buy into Medicare for a reasonable premium rated by state and county they reside.

If one has certain body parts excluded from coverage by a rider either mandate an insurance company must drop that rider in two years or let them buy into Medicare at a reasonable rate.

It easy to say scrap medicare and the ACA but how exactly would you do that. There are 44 million people on Medicare who are major consumers of healthcare in the US. Walk in any hospital and you will see that most of the patients are over 65. These are people that typically have in excess of $50,000 in medical cost every year. So what do you do with these 44 million people. Medicaid expansion which is part of of the ACA provides healthcare for 17 million more people. Again what exactly do you do with them. These people vote as do there families friends. To think they will quietly go away and die is bit naive.

 

[Flopper]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

 

[percysunshine]

I think Congress should have the same healthcare as Native American Indians have.

Fair is fair.

 

[dblack]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

Ahh... the boiling frog strategy. Good one.

Your plan sounds like an insurance exec's wet dream.

Much like ACA, the overarching goal here is to funnel as much money as possible to the insurance industry. But rather than mess around trying to force people to buy insurance, the government will just buy it on their behalf and tax them for it. This is called "Medicare". The insurance companies get our money, either way.

 

[progressive hunter]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,