debeda

Because right now not all doctors take Medicare and more will take only a certain percentage because of cost restraints. If all have Medicare care will inevitably decline, as shown in other social medicine countries.

debeda

buffalo Loc: Texas

Bullshit! A whopping 93 percent of primary care physicians accept Medicare. Only 1% of doctors do not participate in Medicare and Medicaid at all and 42% of those are psychiatrists. Go figure...

Despite widespread claims that doctors are fleeing Medicare, more than 9 in 10 still accept new Medicare patients and fewer than 1 percent have quit the program. The vast majority of seniors have regular access to a doctor and can find a physician when they need one. And Medicare patients are no more likely than others to have to wait for a timely appointment. Nearly all say they always or usually can see their doctor when they want to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2013/12/18/there-is-no-shortage-of-doctors-willing-take-medicare-patients/

Medicare for All is not "socialized" medicine. Why don't you take the time to learn the difference between "socialized" medicine and single payer universal health CARE?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Does this ring a bell?

. If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
.A family of 4 will pay $2500.00 less

If you believe these same assholes that lied about Obamacare, you like being cheated.

buffalo Loc: Texas

I only heard obammy state that lie. Do you think the average family of 4 and/or their employer would rather continue paying $2000+/month for health INSURANCE that may or may not pay any claims after a high deductible and co-pays or would they rather pay $1000/month with no deductible or co-pays and be covered for any and all health CARE needs?

Best estimate I have seen:

Substantial savings
Something that often gets lost in the debate over the cost of single-payer is that its implementation would lead to a host of savings that make the bill to taxpayers a lot less than the sticker price.

I estimate that a full single-payer system would likely save almost 19 percent of current spending, or about $665 billion for 2017. A simple Medicare expansion wouldn’t save quite as much but it’d still be significant.

So where would the savings come from?

To begin with, studies show that medical billing is more expensive in the U.S. than in many countries.

The U.S. health care system spends twice as much as Canada, for example, because more “payers” means more complexity. Savings from a simple Medicare expansion could reduce this waste by about $89 billion a year.

Another source of savings is on insurance administration. Private insurers spend more than 12 percent of total expenditures on overhead, compared with around 2 percent for Medicare. Savings from moving everyone to Medicare would approach around $75 billion because of economies of scale, lower managerial salaries and more meager marketing expense.

A third way a simple Medicare expansion would yield savings is by reducing the ability of hospital monopolies to overcharge private insurers. Medicare, in contrast, is able to pay 22 percent less for the same services because of its size. If all Americans used Medicare savings on hospital costs could exceed $53 billion.

These three areas then would save just under $220 billion, bringing the cost down to $618 billion.

One small step
While $618 billion still seems like a hefty price tag, taxes wouldn’t have to be raised much to pay for it.

For starters, most everyone would pay the premiums already charged by Medicare. This would generate an additional $210 billion in revenue from premiums.

In addition, a Medicare expansion would reduce the need for two current insurance subsidies: one for employer-provided insurance plans and another that the ACA provides insurers. This would save about $161 billion.

This leaves about $246 billion that would still need to be raised through additional taxes. This could be done with an increase in the Medicare tax that gets deducted from your paycheck. The tax, which is split evenly between employee and employer, would need to rise to 5.9 percent from 2.9 percent today. This would amount to just under $15 a week for the typical employee.

Campaigns for universal health insurance coverage have failed in the United States when they run up against the cost of providing coverage. Medicare, America’s greatest success in advancing health care, succeeded precisely because it was limited and had its own dedicated funding streams.

http://theconversation.com/medicare-for-all-could-be-cheaper-than-you-think-81883#comment_1405377

debeda

I think you're the one who needs to take a little time to educate yourself fully on this issue.

buffalo Loc: Texas

No, YOUR the one that said not all doctors take Medicare. Well, not all do, but it is a VERY small percent, like 1% and nearly half of them are psychiatrists.

Your confusing single payer, like Medicare for All with socialized medicine. IT IS NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

Single payer is EXACTLY that a single entity pays for all medical CARE. Hospitals are still privately owned and Doctors are still in private practices. It doesn't necessarily have to be the government that is the single payer.

Socialized medicine is when the government owns and operates the hospitals and medical clinics with the doctors and medical personnel working for the government--think VA

Comprende?

debeda

What I said was some percentage of doctors will not take Medicare and most doctors will only take a certain percentage of their practice as Medicare. Apparently you need a little work on your reading comprehension as well.

buffalo Loc: Texas

debeda, "Because right now not all doctors take Medicare and more will take only a certain percentage because of cost restraints. If all have Medicare care will inevitably decline, as shown in other social medicine countries".

THAT is what you said. Only a small fraction (1%) of doctors take accept NO Medicare at all and 43% of those are psychiatrists.

Medicare is not socialized medicine! I explained the difference and obviously YOU didn't comprehend.

debeda

Uh huh. Word games and semantics. Typical.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

The entire Progressive left lied about Obamacare, and the Prog MSM lapped it up like a dog eating his own vomit.

Obamacare was written to fail and destroy private healthcare by Democrats, because Democrats wanted to force Socialism down the throats of desperate people.

If you can't see you're being lied to I pity you greatly.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Why are you blathering about the ACA. I hated the ACA.

Was ocare "written to fail and destroy private healthcare by Democrats, because Democrats wanted to force Socialism down the throats of desperate people."

REALLY?

http://healthoverprofit.org/2017/02/05/obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/05/06/insurers-post-obamacare-profits-with-little-interest-in-trump-plans/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/how-the-authors-of-obamacare-protected-insurance-companies/440853/

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/insurance-industry-supports-government-subsidized-healthcare-when-they-profit-from-it-051617.html

I call bullshit to your shill defense of the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations!

What politicians and the Health INSURANCE corporations want to do is force their version of health CARE for BILLIONS in PROFITS down the throats of the american sheople, and their winning.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

When I said Free Market I want completely accurate. 3rd party pay is not the best method, because people spend the insurance company's money almost as quickly as they spend the government's money.

More freedom is the answer, not more government mandates, more taxes, and less liberty.

FSAs would be a part of the better solution. Not only better than having Maxine Waters having a voice in your healthcare, but better than what we currently have.

boofhead

The costs of malpractice need to be controlled. This includes the malpractice insurance, added to every bill, and the cost of outrageous settlements in the courts for claims. It should be limited to damages and a percentage only for "pain and suffering". Allowing unlimited payments only costs everyone more and encourages these court cases. This could reduce the cost of medical for everyone by 30 percent.

The costs of drugs is insane (that is a technical term). Way over the top and no way to justify it. Another 30 percent.

The problems we are discussing would be minor and not worth our time if we paid less for the services. Like they do everywhere else. We pay five times more for every aspect of medical costs in this country than any other developed country does. That is the crux of the matter and what has to be addressed. many people and organizations are rich because we, the taxpayers and citizens, have to pay so much more than the services are worth. Control the costs. Tort reform. Allow importation of drugs to provide competition. Relatively easy to do, although corruption in our governing class is endemic and seemingly uncontrollable, worse than most third-world countries so the medical costs are only symptoms of the same problem of corruption. It is not surprising that our politicians can be bought off; only how little it costs to do so. But those little amounts build up and it has become normal for grease to be used to lubricate every wheel, every transaction, every law change, every bureaucratic decision. As it is done in every other tin-pot country.

vernon

Well lets do it like this we keep our medicare and you form your own medicare for the other 85 %.