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.

 

The Case for Medicare for All Citizens ?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. Do you realize you are essentially suggesting a single-payer health care system?

I'm 100% behind that if that tells you anything about how much your conservative peers will hate it.

No no no! It's not single-payer health care! It's "Patriot Care" & it guarantees that all Americans are defended from external physical ailments in these unstable times.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Universal Medicare would defeat the purpose of banning insurance. I work with Medicare and private insurance companies on a daily basis. If America went universal Medicare, I would leave the country, no questions asked. That is how screwed up their system is.

No. A better thing would be to ban insurance altogether. Patients would not be able to afford healthcare without the providers dropping costs drastically, and a healthcare provider is useless without patients. Doctors would have to take wage cuts, and the system would level itself out.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

Question for you since you are in the business....

If the government takes over, do you know how many people would be displaced (unemployed) ?

Employees of insurance companies and all related agencies.

I think there could be a problem.



Traditional Health Insurance companies who have large OBAMACARE customer bases have already laid-off most employees, and out-sourced their functions. Example: Illinois Blue Cross (Chicago HQ) is in the process of moving 7,700 jobs outside of the United States, to offset the $256 million they lost in 2015.

Those who are primarily in the GROUP (large/medium corporation) business, providing insurance for employees, would be hurt to some degree, but not as much as 10 years ago. United Healthcare for instance, is now raking in YUGE profits from administering MEDICAID for the many millions of new Medicaid Expansion enrollees. So is CENTENE corporation.

Employers would GLADLY swap paying the current $1100 a month per-employee's health coverage, for $480 a month Medicare-For-All coverage.

Under a Medicare-For-All system, the losers will be physicians at first...and ultimately the public. Doctors will have to churn through more patients per month, if they want to keep the same standard of living. That's not good for patient care. (sidebar: Doctors already have the highest suicide rate in America. More pressure is not good for them.)

If you have Medicare-For-All coexisting with a PRIVATE health insurance industry, they Medicare-for-all patients will be big losers. The best doctors will gravitate to the patients with PRIVATE insurance.. cause it pays them better per treatment.
(This actually happens now. 40% of Illinois doctors are not taking LOWER PAYING ObamaCare health insurance plans. Far more are not accepting Medicaid patients.)

The government (H.H.S.) is all giddy because 11 million new people are in Medicaid.. even though most GOOD doctors won't see them. I'll be so glad when the current arseholes at Health and Human Services are gone. Counting down the days!



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor




The prices have decreased considerably in those fields: lasik, lypo, and plastic surgery. 


You are comparing apples to oranges here. These are all elective surgeries. No one needs Lasik. No one is going to die if they don't have their thighs sucked free of excess chub. Plastic surgery is rarely ever necessary.

No...that's not health care. Not by a long shot. Insurance typically does not cover those procedures, so they're out of pocket anyway. But every day health issues that require maintenance meds, rescue meds, therapeutic blood levels, etc...not to mention a myriad of emergent health issues that can happen unexpectedly...actual medical care needs to be regulated.

Would you want to be trying to shop around for an affordable ER to take your family member to who is exhibiting signs of an acute cerebral accident or heart attack or serious injury, only to be turned away from facility after facility because you can't pay the fee in full? Because that's what would happen if the entire medical field were to be deregulated. Pharmacies could charge whatever they wanted for drugs, ambulance companies could operate like taxi services if they wanted to. It would be only those who had cash on hand for any and every possible medical need who would be able to receive care.

There's a competitive market for elective surgeries, etc., because they are paid for out of pocket in advance by people who can afford to do so. If suddenly everything were out of pocket only, we would see a very different dynamic entirely.

Before EMTALA, people having life threatening medical emergencies could be refused medical treatment at an ER if the patient could not pay for it at the time of their visit. And people were dying. Women giving birth on the sidewalks because they were turned away. That happened. And it will happen again if all the rules that keep these people in check are removed. It's all fun and games til it's your loved one dying because they were not able to pay for medical treatment.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. Do you realize you are essentially suggesting a single-payer health care system?

I'm 100% behind that if that tells you anything about how much your conservative peers will hate it.

No no no! It's not single-payer health care! It's "Patriot Care" & it guarantees that all Americans are defended from external physical ailments in these unstable times.


Crap! Nice save.

That's what I meant. Trump-Aid-Freedom-Care!



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aazadan

That's like saying water isn't wet. If there is only one payer that I am forced to use, then that payer is a monopoly because it has no competitors.


I don't think you understand how single payer works. All of the medical businesses still compete to get a customer, it's just that there's only one customer with deep pockets. It leads to a few large orders for products and services rather than a bunch of small ones.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

So then every patient would be at the disposal of Medicare? Prior authorizations, non-formulary drug rejections, clinical reviews...it would be cookie cutter coverage, and if the patient disagreed, there wouldn't be any competitors to go to.

Its just a bad idea.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aazadan

So then every patient would be at the disposal of Medicare? Prior authorizations, non-formulary drug rejections, clinical reviews...it would be cookie cutter coverage, and if the patient disagreed, there wouldn't be any competitors to go to.

Its just a bad idea.


And that's different from now how? Right now, if you disagree you're at the mercy of your insurance company.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That's why I think insurance should be abolished completely and all transactions made out of pocket. That will for practices to lower prices or shutdown.

At least today, people have the option to choose slightly better insurance companies, but I think insurance abolition would correct the problem.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

And what do you do about the people who cannot afford out of pocket transactions? Do they just die?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

And what do you do about the people who cannot afford out of pocket transactions? Do they just die?


What happens now when people can't afford out of pocket transactions ?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Debt. But it will be significantly smaller, and the patient won't get hit with premiums, deductibles, and copays. Plus there will always be charities of some form in a free market.


edit on 18-1-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
65 and over?

Glue Factory.


Why not just go full "Logans Run" and start offing people when theyre 30.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aazadan

That's why I think insurance should be abolished completely and all transactions made out of pocket. That will for practices to lower prices or shutdown.

At least today, people have the option to choose slightly better insurance companies, but I think insurance abolition would correct the problem.



The insurance business is capitalism and employs almost 3 million people; when they don't have jobs...how do you correct that problem.

Insurance is here to stay...And Trump will make sure they make even more profit than the ACA ever did.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aazadan

That's why I think insurance should be abolished completely and all transactions made out of pocket. That will for practices to lower prices or shutdown.

At least today, people have the option to choose slightly better insurance companies, but I think insurance abolition would correct the problem.


It could never be done due to the cost of medications. Most illnesses are very rare, getting sick in general is common but coming down with any specific condition only happens to 1 in many thousands of people. Something is considered common if it happens to say 1 in 5,000 or 10,000 people. Rare conditions happen more along the lines of 1 in 100,000 people. That means 3,200 new cases per year in the US. Lets say we expand drug patents from 7 years to 10 (just to keep the math simple), that would be 32,000 cases that need to cover a drugs R&D cost before it's worth developing and the average drug costs $5 billion to get to market. That means you need to collect $156,250 for that drug from every person who gets sick, and that's just to break even.

People cannot afford $150,000 to treat a medical condition.

By removing insurance and making people pay out of pocket you're not going to bring these drug costs down, because that's their absolute minimum already. You'll merely prevent any new drugs from being developed.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I can assure you that 90% of drugs are marked up by at least 400% of acquisition cost. I see it on a daily basis.

The system needs gutting. Maybe WWIII will solve the economic burden. Is about time for another real war anyways.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Just for the record, industries come and go all the time. What happened to the workers in the asbestos industry when it was finally outlawed? Or the "whale oil/blubber" industry when better replacements came along?

Besides, all 3 branches of the federal govt will be controlled by the party that prides itself on being job creators. So surely they'd be able to think of something, right?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

We desperately need price controls.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aazadan

I can assure you that 90% of drugs are marked up by at least 400% of acquisition cost. I see it on a daily basis.

The system needs gutting. Maybe WWIII will solve the economic burden. Is about time for another real war anyways.


Just because they're marked up doesn't mean you can make them inexpensive. Like I pointed out in my example, the break even point (no profit/markup) still results in a drug costing $150,000. Niche medicines (which a lot of people ultimately end up needing) aren't very cost effective to develop, but they're the only option.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Its not that simple. That will shut down the whole industy over night.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join