It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: brutus61
A single payer system always has high cost and low quality.
Proof? Or are you just pulling that out of your arse? Because if you study Medicare, it's pretty good with a low operating overhead.
You're right, his assertions are nothing more than smelly gas.
If I'm not mistaken, Medicare has an administrative cost that's at or near 3% which is astronomically low for the industry.
I don't believe there's a single for-profit, private healthcare insurance provider that can come anywhere close to those numbers.
While some people's alternative facts may disagree, the actual data regarding the various universal healthcare systems enjoyed throughout the industrialized world shows that they provide healthcare to their citizens at a lower per capita cost with better statistical outcomes.
Oh yeah, both public & private insurance providers are susceptible to fraud & abuse.
Don't let anyone make you believe that it doesn't happen in their house because that's a bunch of baloney as well.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just want this to sink in, those of you that want socialized medicine. . . . basically, you want the Trump administration in charge of your health care.
I'll just sit back and laugh for a while.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Flatfish
The low overhead of medicare is a myth
Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.
Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare's administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare's massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.
Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.
read more about why that is wrong here
I'm not sure I trust the three INDIVIDUALS cited as sources. Maybe you are right. But according to everyone else, Medicare has a 2% operating overhead because they do not have 50% of the administration costs going to the executives. I'm okay for having a fair discussion. As long as the Retardicans disclose the complete executive compensation package in the discussion.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just want this to sink in, those of you that want socialized medicine. . . . basically, you want the Trump administration in charge of your health care.
I'll just sit back and laugh for a while.
The "Trump Administration" is only one of the three branches of government. Regardless of what you or he may think, he's not a dictator.
Nobody's putting Trump in charge of our healthcare. I thought that became pretty obvious just the other day when they couldn't get his plan passed.
originally posted by: havok
originally posted by: FauxMulder
Like I said before never has Government fixed anything. Everything they touch gets worse. More regulations, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less freedom.
Here is one point that I used to agree with. But these days I don't. If the government didn't step in 40 years ago to fix our air pollution, water pollution and land pollution caused from the thousands of steel and iron mills dumping their byproducts directly into the very waterways we drink from, our country would look like Beijing, China. That coupled with the fact that most of them are shut down, are the reasons we have clean waterways and (mostly) clean air today.
So, we have to give them some credit. Its a necessary evil to have a gov't that tells mankind NOT to pollute their own water and air.
Without it, people will do whatever they please if it means more money for them. Disgusting, but the nature of business is not to help people thrive. Its to make money.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015
ok.
Again, if we have socialized medicine, you won't have any say in your healthcare, or healthcare needs.
You'll get what you get.
Now please take a number and stay behind the yellow line. Your appendix will be removed as soon as the paperwork is correct.
Having a universal healthcare system does not prevent people having private healthcare. Most European countries have a mix of both.
In the UK if you don't like the service from the NHS you go private. As the private care has to compete against the NHS it is fraction of the cost of the US.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015
ok.
Again, if we have socialized medicine, you won't have any say in your healthcare, or healthcare needs.
You'll get what you get.
Now please take a number and stay behind the yellow line. Your appendix will be removed as soon as the paperwork is correct.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I also wonder why they think that if there was no private insurance or even employee-sponsored insurance anymore, that they would still have to buy insurance from their employer or buy it privately. It's like they don't realize they'd pay LESS because universal would DIRECTLY ELIMINATE the costs they pay now. There would no longer be premiums, the deductibles, and the out-of-pocket expenses that we have right now.
originally posted by: Flatfish
Medical procedures should be accepted or denied based solely on the merits of the procedure and NOT based on profitability or lack thereof.
originally posted by: brutus61
As a Trump supporter I will probably not be received well with this post but I believe this is the right way to go. With big insurance companies out of the way the overall cost of healthcare will be reduced immensely. I actually would have backed Bernie because of this alone. If our country has the highest medical costs and lowest care, there is something wrong. So what it it that lowers cost and improves performance? Single payer system.
“Ideally, where we should going is to join the rest of the industrialized the world and guarantee health care to all people as a right. And that's why I'm going to introduce a Medicare-for-all single-payer program,” Sanders said.
I think if Bernie and President Trump got together on this all Americans would experience the feeling of MAGA.
In the short term, Sanders advocated his bill that would lower the cost of prescription drugs. “President Trump said a whole lot of stuff on the campaign trail. One of the things he talked about was lowering the cost of prescription drugs. There is wonderful legislation right now in the Senate to do that. “President Trump, come on board. Let's work together. Let's end the absurdity of Americans paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs…”
I recently wrote a letter to President Trump expressing my opinion of some of the problems with mediciad and possible fixes. I have not heard back but will not stop trying nonetheless.
Here is a link to the story.
LINK
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Flatfish
Medical procedures should be accepted or denied based solely on the merits of the procedure and NOT based on profitability or lack thereof.
Medical procedures will just be based on if you can pay taxes afterwards.
originally posted by:
DBCowboy
Try getting things changed at the DMV or the VA.
That's what it'll be like.
Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare's administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare's massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.
Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.