buffalo Loc: Texas

So, you don't deny that Medicare for All would be the solution to the health care crisis in the US? The problem is a corrupt government that is in bed with big corporations.

Here educate yourself if your truly interested in a solution and not just brainwashed:

Medicare for all: A solution for health care
By Sean Lehmann, D.P.M.
Nevada Appeal, Jan. 20, 2016

The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) has most certainly had some successes. There are many who didn’t have health coverage that do now and many others who can now get coverage that were previously denied due to pre-existing conditions.

With that said, still others have seen increases in their premiums, deductibles and co-pays. It has become more and more obvious the ACA is not a long term solution for our health care system. Unfortunately, neither party has championed a viable alternative. The majority of Democrats vow to protect the ACA, while the Republicans repeatedly attempt to “repeal Obamacare” which isn’t a plan at all.

I began practice as a sole practitioner nearly 16 years ago. One of my first workplaces was the Fallon Tribal Clinic. The family practice doctor at that clinic told me it was a “grave mistake” when we decided as a country that health care would be treated as a for-profit commodity. During the years I have learned he was definitely right. I have had the unique perspective of being on the front lines of health care as both a provider and consumer.

In our current system, private for profit insurance companies are middlemen and as such, drive up the cost of health care. There are only two ways in which an insurance company can increase profits for its shareholders: raising premiums and denying care. This is a serious conflict of interest, yet we have allowed it to happen.

During 2014 alone, the CEO of United Health Care made $66.1 million. Not to be outdone, the CEO of Gilead Pharmaceuticals made $192.8 million in the same year. As a nation we spend 17 percent of our GDP on health care, while the next closest country, Norway, spends only 9.3 percent. The vast majority of nations spend less than 10 percent of their GDP on health care and still provide universal coverage for their citizens. We spend significantly more on health care than any other nation on earth, yet more than 50 percent of personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills or illness.

How do we fix this? The overhead for private for profit health insurance companies is nearly 20 percent, yet the overhead with Medicare is only 1.3 percent. Eliminating the middleman would account for an immediate 18 percent reduction in our healthcare costs. As Americans well know, we also pay infinitely more for prescription drugs than the rest of the world. In fact, we’re the only country that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge whatever they want. By negotiating these prices, we could realize large savings.

Personally, I pay nearly $6,000 a year to insure my family. We also have a $10,400 deductible. This means I pay $16,000 per year before my family and I get any health care coverage. I have heard horror stories from patients of mine who pay even more, some significantly more.

What about Medicare? The program that covers seniors isn’t perfect, but the costs to patients are infinitely lower. The monthly premium is $104.90 and the deductible is $166. This means seniors will pay just more than $1,400 yearly before Medicare begins to cover them. My father was self-employed and paid enormous premiums to a private insurer before he turned age 65. He was relieved when he was finally able to enroll in Medicare, just like many others were when they became eligible. So why not extend Medicare to everyone? There’s a bill to do just that, HR 676, “expanded and improved Medicare for all”.

So how do we pay for it? There is already a payroll tax for Medicare. This payroll tax would be increased slightly, but the increase would pale in comparison to what we’re already paying for health care. Remember, I’m already paying $16,000 per year. Others are paying even more. Employers would see huge savings over what they are contributing to private for profit plans. A recent study by the University of Massachusetts showed there would be an annual savings of $592 billion. No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care.

It’s clear Medicare for all could be positive for many patients, but what about physicians? Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a National organization of more than 20,000 physicians and other health care providers that endorse this plan. In my own practice, it would be welcome change. Instead of dealing with hundreds of insurance companies and literally thousands of plans, I would only have to deal with one. Talk about making things easier! The countless hours spent credentialing, negotiating, and appealing with all these different plans would be reduced significantly. The extra time I would have available could be spent where it should be: patient care. Moreover, with everyone on Medicare, there would be no networks and patient access would be increased substantially.

There’s no perfect solution to our health care dilemma. However, I would propose Medicare for all is a viable and workable alternative. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows 58 percent of Americans agree. We have recently organized a Nevada Chapter of PNHP and invite all those who support this initiative to join us. Please visit www.pnhp.org for more information.

Dr. Sean L. Lehmann is a practicing podiatrist in Carson City. He also has a master’s degree in health care administration and is chair of the Nevada Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

buffalo Loc: Texas

What does national security, roads and help for the needy have to do with health care costs? Health care expenditures in the US on a per capita basis are the highest in the world. Why? Because we cling to a system that allows a middle man (for profit, private health insurance corporations) to extract $500 BILLION annually from that same health care system.

Medicare for all would save billions in 'wasteful' spending
July 31, 2013 | By Dina Overland


Americans' health and well-being would benefit from a complete expansion of Medicare, essentially eliminating the "wasteful" private insurance industry, according to a new study from the Physicians for a National Health Program.

What's more, expanding Medicare to cover every individual would save billions of dollars each year. Study author Gerald Friedman, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, estimated a Medicare-for-all plan could save $592 billion next year.

"Paradoxically, by expanding Medicare to everyone we'd end up saving billions of dollars annually," Friedman wrote. "We'd be safeguarding Medicare's fiscal integrity while enhancing the nation's health for the long term."

Friedman concluded if HR 676, a bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) that would establish a national single-payer system by expanding Medicare, became law, it would save $476 billion in administrative waste found within the private insurance industry.

"Nearly five decades after its enactment, here's what we know: Medicare saves money by eliminating all the waste associated with the for-profit insurance industry," Conyers and Public Citizen President Robert Weissman wrote in a Huffington Post blog post.

The savings would translate to "truly universal coverage, improved benefits and the elimination of premiums, co-payments and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking care," Friedman said.

Plus, Conyers and Weissman added, "Americans would never have to fight with their insurance company ever again."

Comment Loc: California

Your mind is made up. Have fun with your delusions.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Your mind has been brainwashed by the lies and myths of big, for profit, private health insurance corporations. Maybe your just a paid shill for the health insurance industry, eh?

Let me ask you this...Should health care be a right for everyone or a bankrupting privilege for only those that can afford it or pay ridiculously high premiums to health insurance corporations? Guess what buddy, the poor and elderly before the ACA got to treat health care as a right, paid for by the taxpayers. The ACA with its mandate did not change that. Those same taxpayers are faced with health insurance premiums the equivalent of 3 car payments, a huge deductible and face bankruptcy ( and STILL have to pay for the poor). Only, now, with the ACA that taxpayer subsidy goes to big, for profit, private health insurance corporations that extract over $500 BILLION in profits from the health care system to pay their CEOs and top executives millions in salaries and bonuses. To do what? Figure out how to maximize profits-(1. by increasing premiums and (2. denying medical claims. Why do you think the taxpayers still foot the bill for the elderly and poor instead of the health insurance industry? Because the Elderly and poor generate the most in health care expenses.

New research shows tax-funded expenditures account for 64.3 percent of U.S. health spending, with public spending exceeding total spending in most countries with universal care. Yet we still leave 33 million uninsured.

58% of Americans support Medicare for All.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/doctors-group-welcomes-national-debate-on-%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Absolutely...any one of us, at any time could choose to become socialist and allow Obama to represent us. How silly of us to have overlooked that! ;)

RETW Loc: Washington

Right on the money Mike.


RETW 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)