Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-08-2018, 01:58 PM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,471,648 times
Reputation: 4130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
Medicaid isn't any less expensive and its not skewed towards any one age demo.

So your theory doesn't hold up.

Medicare does have high costs but you also have to remember that it underpays ......so the payments it makes are only a fraction of the actual cost, which more than evens out the fact that the elderly consume more care. For example, Medicare pays only $49 for an office visit billed at $70, per the Medicare approved reimbursement schedule, but the average office visit actually costs $85-100. So doctors lose money on Medicare patients and have to recoup those losses on the non-Medicare patients.
I'm a primary care doc and take Medicare. In my low COL area and lean practice, I can make decent money with Medicare. Private carriers pay about the same +/- maybe 10%. I and most docs can't just raise the price on private pay patients very easily. Most of our fees are preset.

For specialists the above might not apply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:11 PM
 
5,888 posts, read 3,225,564 times
Reputation: 5548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
I'm a primary care doc and take Medicare. In my low COL area and lean practice, I can make decent money with Medicare. Private carriers pay about the same +/- maybe 10%. I and most docs can't just raise the price on private pay patients very easily. Most of our fees are preset.

For specialists the above might not apply.
Yah, my point of reference is California. We're at the high end of everything in regards to costs, across the board, so here the disparities and impacts will be the most pronounced.

Our providers also have preset fee schedules.

Hey, I was going to PM you this question, but you don't have PM enabled....As a tangent, what would be the impact on you if there was a law that limited you to charging a maximum of 15% over the actual "costs of service"? Could you stay in business? Is that enough profit in your practice for you? Ie, if the costs of service are 500K, you could bill max of only 575K, so your "profit" on the practice is $75K, assume that's your "net" and not your gross or EBITDA number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:17 PM
 
5,888 posts, read 3,225,564 times
Reputation: 5548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
There are closer to 60M Medicare beneficiaries.

And the rest of our younger, healthier population will not need near the intensity, complexity, and frequency of HC related expense as our Medicare population.
I was taking the data from here: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/hea...9_medicare.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:19 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,550 posts, read 17,227,205 times
Reputation: 17590
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotpair View Post
The Democrats call it Medicare-for-All which sounds like Medicare remains and everyone else is added in.

It doesn't.

Medicare, Medicare Advantage Plans, Medicaid, Tricare, all employer and union-sponsored health plans go away and are replaced by one government-run plan.

That may not sound bad, but the plan will cover all RESIDENTS of the US, not just citizens, for everything from annual exams to nursing home care.

With 22M illegal immigrants (according to 2018 Yale University report) and counting plus 320M citizens, this will be hugely expensive.

When the inevitable rationing happens (just like England), seniors will be at the end of the line for treatments.

If you’re rich, you’ll go outside the government plan and private pay for good care, just like Kate Middleton did for her births. The rest of us will stand in line.

If you think I’m over dramatizing, read the bill Sen. Sanders introduced which is now supported by Democrats from Barack Obama on down:
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s...115s1804is.pdf

I hate Democrat politicians.
Not to worry, dems grants sucking scientific herd just announced the world will end in 12 years due to global warming. Millions will die.


employers are offering healthcare to employees and the UE rate is at an all time low, so that should lift some of the burden on medicare.


Be sure to vote for a democrat to ensure illegal aliens are covered under medicare.


Even when Obama was asked about who the ppaca covered, he corrected himself and gave a number of 11 million less, subtracting the amount of illegal aliens from who would be covered by the ppaca. of course 11 million illegals was a super conservative estimate...consistent with grossly underestimated costs and numbers the government always gives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:57 PM
 
78,408 posts, read 60,593,823 times
Reputation: 49691
Every 2 years around election time we hear how the OTHER party is going to end medicare.

Anyone spreading these lies and trying to scare elderly voters that may not be as sharp as they once were should be ashamed of themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 03:05 PM
 
11,523 posts, read 14,656,371 times
Reputation: 16821
The day Medicare ends is the day all politicians will be voted out. And, Medicare only covers 90 days of LTC/Rehab after a hospitalization, not custodial LTC forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,759 posts, read 8,214,152 times
Reputation: 8537
The OP used a title to attract people to a false narrative.


The GOP has already told us that they are going after SS and Medicare.


It is not to fix it is to weaken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 03:58 PM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,654 posts, read 28,682,916 times
Reputation: 50525
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
Illegals already get free care. Fix that problem first. Then work on whether Americans and residents should get subsidized healthcare.

Illegals should not be eligible for our health care plan once we finally get one. Democrats will have to accept the fact that illegals who never paid into the system, and affordable health care cannot co-exist. You only get it if you're a US citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 04:14 PM
 
Location: San Diego
50,289 posts, read 47,043,365 times
Reputation: 34068
Granting free health care to 20 million people that shouldn't even be here? What could possibly go wrong? Meanwhile millions of veterans who challenged their lives in our military are homeless. Sad, beyond sad. Maddening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 04:16 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,259 posts, read 5,131,727 times
Reputation: 17752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss View Post


The GOP has already told us that they are going after SS and Medicare.


.



No, your comment is the false narrative. The GOP realizes that the SS & Medicare systems are doomed to financial failure as they stand and the system needs to be revised.



Although I'm personally a "small govt type," even I have to admit that SS & Medicare taxes are much too low to support the system as it stands. (We also need to separate SSDI from the retirement system--that's what's killing it. We have way too many lazy bums with "bad backs" who only contribute for 5 yrs then reap benefits for the next 60 yrs, while honest workers contribute for 50 yrs and are lucky to live for 20 yrs after retirement.)


A better system would have each individual's personal contributions go into an individual investment account. We could require a $20/ month conribution be collected from birth to age 18. (The Dow has averaged a gain of 5.5%/yr for the pat 140 yrs). After age 18 no more contributions would be made-- just "let it ride."... At age 65 there would be ~$2.5 Million (!!!) in the account....Under the current system, an individual receives no more than ~$500,000 IF he lives to be 85....I'd call that a pretty crappy system. Why are libs so worried about saving it?


BTW- that $2.5 Million could be used for retirement, medical expenses and any remainder left to heirs also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top