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.
You wouldn't need to tax that high, with a Medicare for all. Single payer is the only solution
to high insurance premiums and co pays. Folks really should not be confusing who issues the
check for payment and health care delivery by one's provider.
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, no matter how much Corporate Medicine
wants you to think so.
medicare (the way it is) would be the worst program to follow
medicare lowballs the payments...medicare is historicly slow with paying the provider...medicare loves to REJECT/DECLINE services...and medicare is only a PARTIAL coverage.where the senior has to BUY supplemental insurance
get the government out of health care and you will see cost improvements
medicare (the way it is) would be the worst program to follow
medicare lowballs the payments...medicare is historicly slow with paying the provider...medicare loves to REJECT/DECLINE services...and medicare is only a PARTIAL coverage.where the senior has to BUY supplemental insurance
get the government out of health care and you will see cost improvements
Medicare is probably no more slow than most private insurances. Medicare covers quite a bit. I thought all the cons wanted people to pay more out of pocket, just like you do on Medicare if you have no supplemental? (Of course, the supplemental is out of pocket, too.)
1) Tell the AMA to allow more medical schools to open, or else risk losing their privileges. There is a huge under supply of medical professionals from the AMA essentially imposing scarcity to keep prices high for med schools, and salaries high for doctors. Not a single new med school was allowed to open for 20+ years. Our country has added about 100,000,000 people since the AMA started squeezing supply in the 1970s.
You wouldn't need to tax that high, with a Medicare for all. Single payer is the only solution
to high insurance premiums and co pays. Folks really should not be confusing who issues the
check for payment and health care delivery by one's provider.
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, no matter how much Corporate Medicine
wants you to think so.
Absolutely true.
The tax for health care in the UK is no where near 40% and that covers not only all health care but all of the Social Security benefits too.
Here is the problem with the 'free market' solution.
It has never actually been tried in a large developed country so we don't know whether it would be cheaper or more efficient than the UHC alternative.
On the other hand, UHC has been tried and works in multiple developed countries. It delivers as good or better health care than we have right now and it costs about half as much as we pay now.
So why would we experiment with a free market solution when we know that UHC works and is a whole lot cheaper?
medicare (the way it is) would be the worst program to follow
medicare lowballs the payments...medicare is historicly slow with paying the provider...medicare loves to REJECT/DECLINE services...and medicare is only a PARTIAL coverage.where the senior has to BUY supplemental insurance
get the government out of health care and you will see cost improvements
I'm always an advocate for improvement, Medicare included. But,
get private for profit insurance companies out of health care and you will see
cost improvements. It's really a no brainer.
Medicare is just as quick if not quicker than private insurance in payment.
Not to mention, a provider knows exactly what procedures
and what the payments are going to be. No surprises.
A lot of folks think they are covered by something, until the provider bills and then,
oops "only in case of emergency, only if in network, only if prior authorization,
and so on. Screws the provider time and time again.
Not to mention, folks are really reluctant to pay when they are told their
private insurance does not pay for something. Providers are not a patient's
collection agency for a private insurer, nor should they be expected to be.
Want to know why the elderly make comments like "Get your hands off my Medicare"???
Because they like it. In fact, they love it. A lot
Fix the physician fee schedule debacle and I'd say 99 percent of providers will love it too
DME - durable medical equipment abuse - well that's another story IMO.
...which is why we need to combine this with tort reform, removing restrictions that limit the number of residency spots and allowing to buy medical care across state lines.
A truly competitive environment would dramatically lower prices.
1- Thirty eight states have tort reform. Has it helped? Should federal government force states to take on a federal tort reform, regardless of their disagreement with the idea?
2- Why does it have to be about giving up states' rights to have a competitive market? Why can't a state achieve that within its own boundaries?
A lot of folks think they are covered by something, until the provider bills and then,
oops "only in case of emergency, only if in network, only if prior authorization,
and so on. Screws the provider time and time again. Not to mention, folks are really reluctant to pay when they are told their
private insurance does not pay for something. Providers are not a patient's
collection agency for a private insurer, nor should they be expected to be.
We often disagree, polly, but you are spot on with that statement. Even when the patient has to pay a higher co-pay for a drug, some call our office and want a cheaper substitute. These "high deductible" plans are the worst! People are very reluctant to pay out of pocket, even when they know that's what they chose with those plans. All of a sudden, a $20 co-pay for everything you need at one visit becomes very attractive.
We often disagree, polly, but you are spot on with that statement. Even when the patient has to pay a higher co-pay for a drug, some call our office and want a cheaper substitute. These "high deductible" plans are the worst! People are very reluctant to pay out of pocket, even when they know that's what they chose with those plans. All of a sudden, a $20 co-pay for everything you need at one visit becomes very attractive.
I would rather pay the 100-200 dollars for a single office visit, than to be paying the 6-12k in insurance premuims or federal taxes to a UHC
its really a no brainer...which is better $200 at the time of the visit..or a MONTHLY fee of 400 or more
get rid of ALL insurance...private and government
you want the SERVICE of a doctor...pay for it
you want the service of a nurse..pay for it
dont make nurses and doctors a min wage slaves to the government
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.
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.
