|
Post by hoofie on Apr 3, 2017 5:07:48 GMT -7
As I watch the politicians hiss and moan over who has the best plan, I can plainly see that neither does. Can we agree that the current plan is failing? The concept of single payer keeps getting brought up. Can we have a civil discussion on how it might or might not work? I'll restrain myself before taking off my moderator hat and commenting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 8:07:56 GMT -7
IMHO, we need to stop burdening the middle class with such a large tax.
And in my opinion taxes should go to help our country (not invested in illegal immigration).
If you lowered taxes (like Trump plans) and created a 2 percent tax for everyone, including the rich, we could save money in taxes and we could make single payer a reality. Because then the government is the people who makes deals with providers. And since we are the most expensive in the world and yet rank 37th for care, we can cut costs by a lot and still pay more then other countries to the providers. This will make the USA have the best providers money can buy and guarantee that someone don't lose everything they worked their tail off for cause God forbid they lose the health lottery.
It is also my opinion that the medical establishment will also become interested in cures and not returning customers. Because the government and tax payers are going to want the cost savings.
Now the government breaks everything it touches. I believe an entity should be created to handle this.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 3, 2017 8:35:56 GMT -7
IMHO, we need to stop burdening the middle class with such a large tax. And in my opinion taxes should go to help our country (not invested in illegal immigration). If you lowered taxes (like Trump plans) and created a 2 percent tax for everyone, including the rich, we could save money in taxes and we could make single payer a reality. Because then the government is the people who makes deals with providers. And since we are the most expensive in the world and yet rank 37th for care, we can cut costs by a lot and still pay more then other countries to the providers. This will make the USA have the best providers money can buy and guarantee that someone don't lose everything they worked their tail off for cause God forbid they lose the health lottery. It is also my opinion that the medical establishment will also become interested in cures and not returning customers. Because the government and tax payers are going to want the cost savings. Now the government breaks everything it touches. I believe an entity should be created to handle this. So you believe the 'policy' should be something new, not just Medicare for everyone?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 8:50:49 GMT -7
So you believe the 'policy' should be something new, not just Medicare for everyone? Yes, because I believe anything tied to an old system is going to be subject to threats of cuts. I believe we should start from scratch. Tax money should fund it, but is should be as far away from future policies as possible. It should be simple, to the point, a one page bill in my opinion. The more complexities involved is more of a disaster later in my opinion. I would like a one page bill with a signature.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 3, 2017 10:26:05 GMT -7
You're on to something, but you know Congress can't pass anything that's just on a single page. Also, if taxes are funding this, the government will want some say. If it's privatized, on what basis do you award the contract? Should Medicare & Medicaid be eliminated, phased out, or left alone?
I'm not disagreeing with you, I hammering out the details, which I wish Congress would do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 10:48:54 GMT -7
I think it should be one bill for all. We all pay in and we all benefit from the bill. I believe anything that is used now should be phased out. Or simply just switched to the new system.
My one page idea is to keep stuff out of the bill the government tries to sneak in. If the government does the bill the usual way, there will be some kind of benefit to the rich or the medical industry. I believe that simple and to the point is the way it should go or it will be corrupt from the word go.
As far as the entity, I believe it should be a system of the people. What I mean is tax funded, but the people have say in the care and the entity works for the people. With government oversight as well (restricted oversight).
I believe that this system should also be separate from any government money. It's hard in our system of government right now as is to have this sort of system. But change is possible on this.
We need to humanize people. Mothers, fathers, Aunts, uncles, sons, daughters and so on are the ones who suffer under the current system. If we can have a system that works for everyone with no special treatments, we win.
I think a bit about it like funding for police departments and fire stations. There is no special police department or fire station. This bill need to be in the same manner. Nothing special for anyone and done. We all pay and we all benefit.
Some think that universal health care is socialist. I disagree. I believe that a 2 percent tax for everyone increases buying power and helps the economy. A measly 2 dollars for every 100 earned? A person making 400 a week would pay 8 bucks for insurance relieving the current 100 per check they probably pay now.
There is even other ways to pay for this. A capital gains tax, stock speculation tax or whatever. We could do it and it could be truly universal while helping the economy.
|
|
|
Post by snakebit on Apr 3, 2017 11:39:44 GMT -7
I think it should be one bill for all. We all pay in and we all benefit from the bill. I believe anything that is used now should be phased out. Or simply just switched to the new system. My one page idea is to keep stuff out of the bill the government tries to sneak in. If the government does the bill the usual way, there will be some kind of benefit to the rich or the medical industry. I believe that simple and to the point is the way it should go or it will be corrupt from the word go. As far as the entity, I believe it should be a system of the people. What I mean is tax funded, but the people have say in the care and the entity works for the people. With government oversight as well (restricted oversight). I believe that this system should also be separate from any government money. It's hard in our system of government right now as is to have this sort of system. But change is possible on this. We need to humanize people. Mothers, fathers, Aunts, uncles, sons, daughters and so on are the ones who suffer under the current system. If we can have a system that works for everyone with no special treatments, we win. I think a bit about it like funding for police departments and fire stations. There is no special police department or fire station. This bill need to be in the same manner. Nothing special for anyone and done. We all pay and we all benefit. Some think that universal health care is socialist. I disagree. I believe that a 2 percent tax for everyone increases buying power and helps the economy. A measly 2 dollars for every 100 earned? A person making 400 a week would pay 8 bucks for insurance relieving the current 100 per check they probably pay now. There is even other ways to pay for this. A capital gains tax, stock speculation tax or whatever. We could do it and it could be truly universal while helping the economy. Universal health care may be socialist but doesn't have to be. Among the developed nations, all of which (except the U.S) deliver universal health care there are successful examples of both types of systems. VA health care is socialist, i.e. government owned. Medicare is not socialist, services are delivered by private entities. Both deliver universal healthcare to a given population for much less money than the PPACA or private insurance plans. Both have many people who are very happy with their treatment and a minority who aren't. All of you who oppose anything "socialist" should please refrain from using the services of police and fire departments and and from driving on public roads. In my opinion phasing in Medicare for all would be the simplest solution to the problem of delivering health care to all while attempting to avoid the term socialist which is misunderstood and demonized by so many, especially on the right. Unfortunately we first have to agree that we want universal healthcare. The Ryan/Bannoncare fiasco made it clear that the Republican party opposes universal healthcare in favor of tax cuts for the rich. The ACA was a tax reform bill, not a healthcare bill.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 3, 2017 11:58:31 GMT -7
The "S" word finally arrives. If you care to search 'socialism', you'll find that there are 2 types. One is the bad type that comes to mind when we hear the word, where the government controls everything. The other, as Mr Bit points out, is government programs benefiting everyone.
In my opinion, Medicare, as it exists today would be a disaster solution for all. It's barely holding itself up for several reasons. Mainly, the lack of checks and audits and pre-authorization, while keeping costs low, enables fraudulent claims to devour 10% of all payouts. Someone on Medicare seeing a facility that accepts it, is at the will of the facility. The facility will file a claim that it thinks it will be paid the most money, and Uncle Sam, returns a check. Coding error? no problem, your check reflects it.
Private insurance spends a great deal of their revenue authorizing, verifying, and scrutinizing claims and submissions. The fraud rate is very low because the profit incentive is so high. One half of one percent of billions of dollars is a lot of money, so pennies are counted. Hospitals and other facilities simply push the costs down the pipe, accepting what they are paid while plowing the loss into future billing. That's how we ended up with $20 doses of aspirin and $12 Band-Aids.
How do we balance out the two extremes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 12:01:15 GMT -7
I agree.
There is section of society that believes that tax breaks for the rich is the only way to go forward. I disagree and believe the tax rate on the rich should go back to what it was in the early 1960s.
But that's off topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 12:08:30 GMT -7
How do we balance out the two extremes? It's simple in my opinion. When there is an interest to save money, costs will lower substantially. We as a people need to band together and demand better. Something has been lost along the way in this country, people used to fight for what was right. Nowadays we allow the government to run on cruise control and we don't hold those in power accountable for their actions. I mean, follow the money.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 3, 2017 13:44:49 GMT -7
I'm old enough to remember when medical coverage consisted of "Hospitalization", which was any trip to the hospital due to an accidental injury. Then you had "Major Medical" which covered hospital stays due to illness. That was it. If you saw a doctor, you paid him. Got prescriptions? You paid for them. The HMO concept threw costs to the wind. Every insurance provider pays a different scale for certain things. BCBS might pay $45 for an $80 office visit, while Medicare pays $30, and the facilities just "take" whatever is paid.
I don't like a meddling government, but perhaps it's time for a truth-in-medical-pricing law. If I finance a house or car, there is a "truth in lending" statement that lays out every cost of the financing. I know to the penny what a new car or house costs and the cost of financing it, but I have no clue what a broken arm or colonoscopy will cost. How can I negotiate the best care if the cost is unknown? Even a car repair gets an estimate and there are laws protecting the consumers.
|
|
|
Post by snakebit on Apr 3, 2017 16:25:30 GMT -7
Initially I ignored hoofies claim-
No, we can't.
It is working well in states that have cooperated in making it work, not so much in states (like Florida) where obstructionist Republicans have sabotaged it. Certainly there are widespread problems but it works well for many and is better than nothing or than anything the Republicans have come up with in 7+ years.
The biggest problem I see is that the swamp dwellers are pushing hoofies line and have a vested interest in doing everything they can via executive order, govt regulations etc. to make the PPACA fail.
Actually, hoofie might be right eventually. P**** grabber is bound to succeed at something someday, maybe it will be making the PPACA fail and taking healthcare from ten or twenty million people.
As for problems with Medicare, they will exist in any system until we take control of insurance companies and other special interests. Medicare is basically working well. People love it. Surely we all remember the rabid anti govt teabaggers chanting "hands of my Medicare". Those were Trump voters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 18:48:17 GMT -7
Initially I ignored hoofies claim- No, we can't. It's not working. And we rank 37th in the world and yet pay more then any developed nation. It is working for the drug companies and doctors. Not working for the people.
|
|
|
Post by bmccullough on Apr 6, 2017 11:32:23 GMT -7
Single-payer/Medicare for all types of health insurance are great options for healthcare COVERAGE - they are well known for reduced premiums and quality coverage; however, to completely "fix" our broken healthcare system, we have to address Tort Reform and pharmaceutical regulation. Otherwise, we're paying for coverage for highly inflated healthcare costs - which will not solve anything and we will wind up in our current situation of untenable premiums and astronomical deductions before coverage kicks in.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 6, 2017 15:23:49 GMT -7
Single-payer/Medicare for all types of health insurance are great options for healthcare COVERAGE - they are well known for reduced premiums and quality coverage; however, to completely "fix" our broken healthcare system, we have to address Tort Reform and pharmaceutical regulation. Otherwise, we're paying for coverage for highly inflated healthcare costs - which will not solve anything and we will wind up in our current situation of untenable premiums and astronomical deductions before coverage kicks in. On this we can certainly agree. It should have been fixed decades ago.
|
|