Alexandria, The New Direction Of The Democrats

[Koko78]

55 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because we shoulder the burden of their defense costs, for one. 

 

Doesn't hurt that US pharmaceutical companies stick the US consumer with the costs of development and sell to those countries on the cheap either. There's a reason that the same exact medications are a fraction of the cost in Canada.

 

People on the northern border used to get medications in Canuckistan all the time, until it was made illegal. Here's an interesting 2014 CNBC article including information about the relative costs for the same meds:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/patients-cross-borders-for-online-deals-on-medications.html

[DC Tom]

40 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

 

That is how it currently works in Canada. I don’t see Canadians in the streets demanding private insurers take over their national healthcare. 

 

In the U.S. 93% of doctors accept Medicare. Medicare pays very well and on-time.  In actuality medical billing is complicated and insurers often slow pay & sometimes don’t pay. This is wasteful & inefficient. Prices can be negotiated as they are now, and pegged to inflation.  

 

The idea that we have people going bankrupt due to medical debt is absurd. 

 

I have a relative who broke her arm a few weeks ago.  Went the the ER, they put an ace bandage on it and said to see an orthopedist.  She couldn't see an orthopedist without a referral from her primary.  Took a week to get the appointment with her primary.  Another two weeks after that to get an appointment with an orthopedist, who then rescheduled it an additional week to accommodate a non-Medicaid patient.  That's four weeks to set a broken arm under a single-payer plan.

 

Another relative has COPD.  There is ONE pulmonologist in the DC area that accepts Medicaid, 90 minutes away, and six weeks to get an appointment.  There used to be two, but the second stopped accepting Medicare and Medicaid because they never paid on time or in full.  

 

I personally know three doctors who have shut down their practices for largely the same reason: "single payer" programs don't pay on time, don't pay in full...and impose such a bureaucratic burden that they have increasingly less time to see patients. 

 

So, in the real world, how do you think "single payer" is going to deliver health care services?  Let me make the question even more pointed: how do you think "single payer" is going to "negotiate" fees with independent medical professionals?

[Foxx]

59 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

 

 

I understand you don’t understand Economics. Venezuela has one primary source of GDP - exporting oil. They are experiencing hyper inflation not deflation.

 

The $17 Trillion savings would be a huge deflationary event, it wouldn’t make us have inflation. 

 

But to say how it’s paid for number one understand this right now every worker pays 1.45% into Medicare & their employer matches 1.45%. This is in addition to the cost of employer provided insurance which costs around $500 a month. 

 

Assume your Medicare tax would go to 5%. Your employer also pays 5% but would get out of the business of administrating and negotiating with health insurers. 

 

 

At 17-19% of GDP our health care system is the highest in the world. We can bring this down to 10% and save trillions. 

 

The question than becomes how do we spend those savings to make our economy not go into hyper-deflation? We’d have some  250,000 newly unemployed bean counters at the private insurance companies, and medical billing office clerks who won’t be needed in such mass numbers. 

again, nice strawman. 

 

my comment was more directed at what happens when the USD becomes worthless due to socialism.

 

as to your strawman, sure thing O. can i keep my doctor too?

 

when has anything the governement gotten their hands into become cheaper?

rhetorical question incase that escaped your reading comprehension as well...

[row_33]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

So our government will force private doctors and medical companies to provide the services and accept whatever the government decides is fair compensation for that? 

 

 

 

A socialist government will force them to accept it, shooting or hanging all dissenters on the spot 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by row_33

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Dr.Sack said:

 

That is how it currently works in Canada. I don’t see Canadians in the streets demanding private insurers take over their national healthcare. 

 

In the U.S. 93% of doctors accept Medicare. Medicare pays very well and on-time.  In actuality medical billing is complicated and insurers often slow pay & sometimes don’t pay. This is wasteful & inefficient. Prices can be negotiated as they are now, and pegged to inflation.  

 

The idea that we have people going bankrupt due to medical debt is absurd. 

 

Doctors limit their Medicare and Medicaid patients due to the low reimbursements from the government.  Private insurers pay the docs more.  If you eliminate private insurance, you'll have to pay the docs more because they won't keep their business at current government-only rates.  Case in point, our local hospital is paid about 5% of list price for medicaid patients but good private insurance pays about 40% of list price for same service different patient. Huge gap and the hospital is a not for profit, so they aren't lining their pockets from the private insurers.  

[PearlHowardman]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

I have a relative who broke her arm a few weeks ago.  Went the the ER, they put an ace bandage on it and said to see an orthopedist.  She couldn't see an orthopedist without a referral from her primary.  Took a week to get the appointment with her primary.  Another two weeks after that to get an appointment with an orthopedist, who then rescheduled it an additional week to accommodate a non-Medicaid patient.  That's four weeks to set a broken arm under a single-payer plan.

 

Another relative has COPD.  There is ONE pulmonologist in the DC area that accepts Medicaid, 90 minutes away, and six weeks to get an appointment.  There used to be two, but the second stopped accepting Medicare and Medicaid because they never paid on time or in full.  

 

I personally know three doctors who have shut down their practices for largely the same reason: "single payer" programs don't pay on time, don't pay in full...and impose such a bureaucratic burden that they have increasingly less time to see patients. 

 

So, in the real world, how do you think "single payer" is going to deliver health care services?  Let me make the question even more pointed: how do you think "single payer" is going to "negotiate" fees with independent medical professionals?

 

Thinking Outside The Box:  Give Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners the authority to set broken bones, etc.  Maybe even prescribe Rx for simple illnesses.  I wouldn't be surprised if most ER visits can be handled by PAs and NPs.  I have no doubt that this would save a lot of money.

 

  

[row_33]

1 minute ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

Thinking Outside The Box:  Give Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners the authority to set broken bones, etc.  Maybe even prescribe Rx for simple illnesses.  I wouldn't be surprised if most ER visits can be handled by PAs and NPs.  I have no doubt that this would save a lot of money.

 

  

 

So increase the number of prescriptions out there? Triple them?

 

 

[PearlHowardman]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

So increase the number of prescriptions out there? Triple them?

 

PAs and NPs treating patients with non-critical medical conditions and even prescribing Rx for non-critical medical conditions should be looked into.

[row_33]

I guess people have a hard time realizing that nobody in society cares about others, and you had better stand up and fight to get anything on your side of the ledger

 

esoecially for health care

[boyst]

2 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

 

That is how it currently works in Canada. I don’t see Canadians in the streets demanding private insurers take over their national healthcare. 

 

In the U.S. 93% of doctors accept Medicare. Medicare pays very well and on-time.  In actuality medical billing is complicated and insurers often slow pay & sometimes don’t pay. This is wasteful & inefficient. Prices can be negotiated as they are now, and pegged to inflation.  

 

The idea that we have people going bankrupt due to medical debt is absurd. 

Source for this? Honestly you're talking out your ass.

[Koko78]

21 minutes ago, row_33 said:

I guess people have a hard time realizing that nobody in society cares about others, and you had better stand up and fight to get anything on your side of the ledger

 

esoecially for health care

 

Nonsense, everyone must play and get a participation trophy! Mommy government will take care of you!

[Doc Brown]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Source for this? Honestly you're talking out your ass.

I'm guessing this is where he got that info.  Keep in mind this was 2015 so I'm sure it's gone down some.  I think we'll eventually get to some kind of single payer system as public support of it continues to grow for it.  The main question will be what country do we model the system after that best fits our demographics.

 

[keepthefaith]

40 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm guessing this is where he got that info.  Keep in mind this was 2015 so I'm sure it's gone down some.  I think we'll eventually get to some kind of single payer system as public support of it continues to grow for it.  The main question will be what country do we model the system after that best fits our demographics.

 

 

I would support a government run single payer system for those that want to participate if:

 

Those insured paid into the system

Employers not mandated to pay into the system, but can contribute for employees if they choose

All premiums collected are deposited by the government into a separate account used only to fund covered medical payouts

Government doesn't force doctors to take these patients

Fund not subsidized by other taxes, but donations from the rich especially liberals are accepted and published

People can choose private insurance if they want

 

In other words, if the government acted like an insurance company and had to balance the books for the program, go for it. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

 

 

 

 

But to say how it’s paid for number one understand this right now every worker pays 1.45% into Medicare & their employer matches 1.45%. This is in addition to the cost of employer provided insurance which costs around $500 a month. 

 

 

 

 

 

Medicare is going broke at it's current level of funding and cost.  We need to either raise Medicare contribution rates or reduce costs or a combination of both.  Having a government entitlement program such as this that can't sustain itself is really stupid.  Pols not leveling with citizens what it really costs and letting the thing run into the red is especially stupid. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I would support a government run single payer system for those that want to participate if:

 

Those insured paid into the system

Employers not mandated to pay into the system, but can contribute for employees if they choose

All premiums collected are deposited by the government into a separate account used only to fund covered medical payouts

Government doesn't force doctors to take these patients

Fund not subsidized by other taxes, but donations from the rich especially liberals are accepted and published

People can choose private insurance if they want

 

In other words, if the government acted like an insurance company and had to balance the books for the program, go for it. 

 

 

 

Medicare is going broke at it's current level of funding and cost.  We need to either raise Medicare contribution rates or reduce costs or a combination of both.  Having a government entitlement program such as this that can't sustain itself is really stupid.  Pols not leveling with citizens what it really costs and letting the thing run into the red is especially stupid. 

 

Umm, doesn't "single payer" mean private insurance isn't an option?

 

[row_33]

Horse left the barn in the 1950s for a US national health program 

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Doesn't hurt that US pharmaceutical companies stick the US consumer with the costs of development and sell to those countries on the cheap either. There's a reason that the same exact medications are a fraction of the cost in Canada.

 

People on the northern border used to get medications in Canuckistan all the time, until it was made illegal. Here's an interesting 2014 CNBC article including information about the relative costs for the same meds:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/patients-cross-borders-for-online-deals-on-medications.html

Correct.

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

Umm, doesn't "single payer" mean private insurance isn't an option?

 

 

We will never have a single payer program in the US that restricts private insurance.  Not in my lifetime. A majority of politicians will never have the guts to do it.  Dems as a party (the majority of them) simply use the issue as a political tool.  Some like Bernie may be willing to pull the trigger but not the majority.  If they did it would have been done when Obama had the majorities in the house and senate.  The lesson of the 2010 election is still fresh.  Dems don't want to solve illegal immigration, health insurance or budget issues.  These are too valuable politically and have to be kept alive.  Beyond tinkering and raising taxes and passing out some additional benefits, they won't solve them.  Republicans at the moment are proving to be similar.

 

 

6 hours ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

Thinking Outside The Box:  Give Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners the authority to set broken bones, etc.  Maybe even prescribe Rx for simple illnesses.  I wouldn't be surprised if most ER visits can be handled by PAs and NPs.  I have no doubt that this would save a lot of money.

 

  

 

There are so many regulations that if corrected would make it easier and less expensive for a lot of medical services.  As long as we have state line restrictions for health insurance and so many regulations, we'll have more expensive insurance.  In most states you have the Fedex/UPS model for health insurance.  Only a few carriers to choose from, basically the same coverage options and the same cost.  Pick your favorite company logo and go with that because there is no meaningful difference.  If you want to cite inefficiencies, start with 50 duplicative orgs for every national carrier. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by keepthefaith

[DC Tom]

11 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

We will never have a single payer program in the US that restricts private insurance.  Not in my lifetime. A majority of politicians will never have the guts to do it.  Dems as a party (the majority of them) simply use the issue as a political tool.  Some like Bernie may be willing to pull the trigger but not the majority.  If they did it would have been done when Obama had the majorities in the house and senate.  The lesson of the 2010 election is still fresh.  Dems don't want to solve illegal immigration, health insurance or budget issues.  These are too valuable politically and have to be kept alive.  Beyond tinkering and raising taxes and passing out some additional benefits, they won't solve them.  Republicans at the moment are proving to be similar.

 

 

 

There are so many regulations that if corrected would make it easier and less expensive for a lot of medical services.  As long as we have state line restrictions for health insurance and so many regulations, we'll have more expensive insurance.  In most states you have the Fedex/UPS model for health insurance.  Only a few carriers to choose from, basically the same coverage options and the same cost.  Pick your favorite company logo and go with that because there is no meaningful difference.  If you want to cite inefficiencies, start with 50 duplicative orgs for every national carrier. 

 

States have a constitutional right to manage insurance standards.

 

You know what happens when you "sell insurance across state lines?"  All the insurers provide one policy that meets the strictest state's standards - probably California's, since they're usually among the strictest and have the most market power.  

[keepthefaith]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

States have a constitutional right to manage insurance standards.

 

You know what happens when you "sell insurance across state lines?"  All the insurers provide one policy that meets the strictest state's standards - probably California's, since they're usually among the strictest and have the most market power.  

 

I'm not familiar with States' constitutional rights for health insurance.  Apparently that doesn't apply to many other forms of insurance.  If the automakers can build California emissions cars and 49 state cars, then insurers can offer different coverage options. 

 

IMO there is simply too much regulation and restriction on coverage and due to this each state becomes a protected market for few providers.  We've seen it here with the large carriers buying the smaller ones who offered better rates, and the end of catastrophic plans (which were once offered) with new coverage mandates. 

[donbb]

18 hours ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

Thinking Outside The Box:  Give Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners the authority to set broken bones, etc.  Maybe even prescribe Rx for simple illnesses.  I wouldn't be surprised if most ER visits can be handled by PAs and NPs.  I have no doubt that this would save a lot of money.

 

  

 

PAs and NPs can prescribe Rx for any medical condition as long as they are under supervision of a physician. Many ER visits are also handled by PAs and NPs until when/if the visits reach a point where they need critical care.