ADVERTISEMENT

What is wrong with this idea?

I want to hear reasons why this won't work...

I know the physicians, drug companies, and insurance companies want us all to believe that it is completely unrealistic (because they won't make as much money), but is it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-medicare-single-payer.html?mcubz=3
He completely leaves out the not very sexy reimbursement issues with Medicare and Medicaid. If Medicare for All is going to be successful, Medicare has to be remodeled, not just expanded. Look into Medicare claim denial as a good starting point. Also look into the red tape of accepting assignment and the claim filing process. Medicare is a giant, complex bureaucracy.
 
I want to see how Bernie wants to pay for his plan before I judge it. His plan goes above and beyond ANY nationalized medicine plan offered in any G20 country. Most of those were limited based on cost concerns and even in those situations, they are immensely expensive for the government. Yet, no where in his plan did he actually discuss how to pay for it. His plan even grows costs as it replaces medicaid with medicare and medicare pays more to doctors. I'd also note that there is a large number of doctors who refuse to take medicare patients due to the low disbursement rates. If those doctors drop out of the system (rather than be forced to accept lower payments) you could potentially see an even further rationing of available care. Finally, the plan means that patients have ZERO skin in the game. This is a negative to me. Now every time little Suzy has the sniffles, mom will run her to the Emergency room, and I (as an upper middle class tax-paying individual) will be subsidizing this behavior.

But like most liberal policies, it will be sold based on what it provides and worry about paying for it later once its in place and can no longer be undone.
 
The main problem is it involves government anything involving government will never make sense. It is basically a bunch of old dudes thinking they are god playing reindeer games.
 
The main problem is it involves government anything involving government will never make sense. It is basically a bunch of old dudes thinking they are god playing reindeer games.

You think we are better off with the physicians, insurance companies and big pharma running our health care system?
 
You think we are better off with the physicians, insurance companies and big pharma running our health care system?
Which physicians currently run our healthcare system? Who better to run it than physicians?

Would you let a local city council be in charge of your clinic, including oversight of what you can do and how much you get paid? Would you be fine only being reimbursed 60% of the actual cost to provide service for quite a few of your patients?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
Which physicians currently run our healthcare system?

The physicians that work for the insurance companies/Rx companies and don't actually practice medicine. Probably more accurate to lump them into the "insurance companies" or "big pharma" groups.

Would you let a local city council be in charge of your clinic, including oversight of what you can do and how much you get paid? Would you be fine only being reimbursed 60% of the actual cost to provide service for quite a few of your patients?

Obviously not, on the City Council question. On the 2nd question, I am probably already only being reimbursed 60% of the actual cost for a lot of my patients because I work with a lot of rescue groups.
 
He completely leaves out the not very sexy reimbursement issues with health insurance. If health insurance for All is going to be successful, health insurance has to be remodeled, not just expanded. Look into health insurers' claim denial as a good starting point. Also look into the red tape of accepting assignment and the claim filing process. Health insurance is a giant, complex bureaucracy.

FIFY.

IMO the same people that pay for all the COBRA coverage in ER's, that pay for the insurance premiums, the medicare and medicaid need some help. It's too much. I pay too damn many insurance premiums and would prefer to just pay a tax once and for all. I pay health insurance for:

Me
Employees (2 that I cover -- gonna be another one shortly)
my family
share of COBRA patients
share of medicare
share of medicaid
Health insurance profit
Health insurance overhead
deductible
copay.

ENOUGH. Just let me pay a tax! This is unsustainable!
 
FIFY.

IMO the same people that pay for all the COBRA coverage in ER's, that pay for the insurance premiums, the medicare and medicaid need some help. It's too much. I pay too damn many insurance premiums and would prefer to just pay a tax once and for all. I pay health insurance for:

Me
Employees (2 that I cover -- gonna be another one shortly)
my family
share of COBRA patients
share of medicare
share of medicaid
Health insurance profit
Health insurance overhead
deductible
copay.

ENOUGH. Just let me pay a tax! This is unsustainable!
Duh. Isn't that the point of going single payer? But should we just stick our head in the sand and wave a wand and poof! now everyone has Medicare! Let's celebrate!?

We all saw the steaming pile of diarrhea the Democrats showered us with in the form of Obamacare. I strongly support single payer, but single payer administered through Medicare as it is today won't be sustainable on the provider or the payer side.

If Bernie expects me to be a bro on this and rattle the shit out of the monkey cage occupied by these shit sticks from Oklahoma, he's going to have to provide the details to convince me that it will work. All he offered was base stirring rhetoric, not an actual plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TPOKE and CowboyJD
There are not enough doctors in this country to handle 100% coverage.

If this happened the wait for some services would take years.

You mean like the 6 month wait that is common and expected for normal or elective surgeries in countries like Canada and the UK? Hope you don't need a knee replacement, or your tonsils out. These take months to be scheduled. Heck even XRays and MRIs can take weeks in countries with nationalized medicine. I'm not sure forcing 300+ million Americans (as well as however many millions of undocumented aliens) into this single system is going to work for anyone.

If this (or something similar) were to pass though, I'd bet that as soon as everyone is on it, there will be the creation of 'private' doctor and physician networks that the wealthy will be able to use and access that isn't funded through the government and thus instead of the poorest 5% (or so) not having good access to medicine like you have now (if even that percentage), you'll have 95% of the population having mediocre healthcare while the wealthy who pass these rules continue on in their secluded bubbles.
 
Duh. Isn't that the point of going single payer? But should we just stick our head in the sand and wave a wand and poof! now everyone has Medicare! Let's celebrate!?

We all saw the steaming pile of diarrhea the Democrats showered us with in the form of Obamacare. I strongly support single payer, but single payer administered through Medicare as it is today won't be sustainable on the provider or the payer side.

If Bernie expects me to be a bro on this and rattle the shit out of the monkey cage occupied by these shit sticks from Oklahoma, he's going to have to provide the details to convince me that it will work. All he offered was base stirring rhetoric, not an actual plan.

I think that is the idea. Let's study it and see if there is a way to make it work. He admits that all he is doing is trying to get the conversation started, and that what he is proposing is not yet a fleshed out plan, ready to be implemented.
 
All of these plans miss the mark. The conversation needs to shift away from how to pay for healthcare by getting everyone insurance. We should be talking about how to actually reduce the cost of care so we don't need to pay for all of this insurance in the first place.

Transparent pricing, decreased admin costs, tort reform to limit the CYA practice of medicine, and other topics should be the focus of reform.
 
All of these plans miss the mark. The conversation needs to shift away from how to pay for healthcare by getting everyone insurance. We should be talking about how to actually reduce the cost of care so we don't need to pay for all of this insurance in the first place.

Transparent pricing, decreased admin costs, tort reform to limit the CYA practice of medicine, and other topics should be the focus of reform.

In states we're so called tort reform limitations on liability statutes have been put in place, significant decreases in healthcare costs hasn't really occurred.

I still fundamentally agree with most of the rest of your post.
 
Brilliant idea, Einstein.
You don't like the government dictating how much you'll get paid for a spay or neuter? Or when you can't give Golliath a hip replacement surgery or Snookums, the 17 year old cat, her cancer medicine?

I also noticed that article said any person. Not any 'citizen'. Huge difference there that was purposely said that way.
 
I think that is the idea. Let's study it and see if there is a way to make it work. He admits that all he is doing is trying to get the conversation started, and that what he is proposing is not yet a fleshed out plan, ready to be implemented.
That conversation has been going on for quite some time. If it is going to have any meaningful discussion, there needs to be an actual plan presented.
 
Finally, something the republicans can rally around -- obstructing an attempt to improve medical care. They'll bitch about Bernie and offer nothing. Just bitch.
 
Transparent pricing, decreased admin costs, tort reform to limit the CYA practice of medicine, and other topics should be the focus of reform.
Tort reform is definitely needed because CYA medicine and the sue everybody for everything mentality is expensive, but the real "cost" of healthcare is due to the charge/reimbursement game. Take a minute to read this link to see exactly how dumb it has become. Those that are winning are the payers, including the government, and the providers are always chasing ways to find any way to increase reimbursement.

http://truecostofhealthcare.org/hospitalization/
 
You don't like the government dictating how much you'll get paid for a spay or neuter? Or when you can't give Golliath a hip replacement surgery or Snookums, the 17 year old cat, her cancer medicine?

It's not even an apples to apples comparison. Nice try though.
 
It's not even an apples to apples comparison. Nice try though.
Except it is if you viewed your field through the lens of human medicine.

I'll add to your reading list. DRG reimbursement. Might have been a decent idea in the early 80s, but human choice with government approval has made patients sicker, fatter, and more diabetic than ever before. Not all pneumonia admissions are equal these days. Not all ACS admissions are equal. Not all stroke admissions are equal. Not all sepsis admissions are equal. But in the eyes of CMS they are. DRG is the method used to reimburse hospitals. DRG reimbursement doesn't account for human choices that make disease management more difficult and costly than ever before.

Reimbursement reform will be required to have a sustainable healthcare system under single payer. Bernie is all base stirring rhetoric without any needed discussion to make single payer viable. Wake me up when he's doing something more substantial than securing his own reelection.
 
Why isn't it?

Seems like doggie Medicare for all pets is pretty close in theory to Medicare for all humans.

I'm surprised I have to spell this out for you (not so surprised when it comes to dchi).

Owning a pet is elective, and a luxury, for a human. Their medical care is not a necessity for human quality of life. In addition, euthanasia is an accepted option for pets, but not for humans. Then, we get into food animal veterinary care, which can't even be compared to human medicine.

Veterinary medical care is a completely different animal (pun intended) from human medical care.

If you don't own a pet, are you going to be happy with the government taxing you and putting your taxes into the animal medicare program?
 
I'm surprised I have to spell this out for you (not so surprised when it comes to dchi).

Owning a pet is elective, and a luxury, for a human. Their medical care is not a necessity for human quality of life. In addition, euthanasia is an accepted option for pets, but not for humans. Then, we get into food animal veterinary care, which can't even be compared to human medicine.

Veterinary medical care is a completely different animal (pun intended) from human medical care.

If you don't own a pet, are you going to be happy with the government taxing you and putting your taxes into the animal medicare program?

Thanks for living down to my low standards for your posts. You are either an idiot or purposefully obtuse. Not sure which one is worse in your case. But hey, you do you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT