• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Design Components and Considerations for Establishing a Single-Payer Health Care System

sangha said:
1. No one is saying that our savings will be the same as Canada's

.
Click to expand...

Really... you need to get out a bit more... because we are being compared to other countries..like Canada all the time and told how if we go to a single payer.. then we will have the same savings.

2. Insurers don't all use the same form and Medicare and Medicaid are not the hardest to get reimbursement from
Click to expand...
Pretty much yes they do.

The CMS-1500 is the universal claim form used by non-institutional healthcare providers (private practices, etc.) to bill Medicare for Part B covered services and some Medicaid-covered services, and is accepted by most health insurance providers.
Click to expand...

as far as Medicaid:
Low Medicaid reimbursement rates are an important factor in a physician’s decision whether or not to accept Medicaid patients, 8–11 but those rates are not the only consideration. The administrative burden of participating in the Medicaid program, delays in reimbursement, and Medicaid patients’ behavior also matter. 14,15 Boukus ER , Casil A , O’Malley AS . A snapshot of US physicians: key findings from the 2008 health tracking physician survey . Washington (DC) : Center for Studying Health System Change ; 2009 .
Click to expand...

3. The money doesn't magically disappear.
Click to expand...
Okay.. I'll bite.. please explain what happens when you reduce GDP by 6%.. In other words..what happens when you reduce our gross national product.. our income if you will.. by 6%.
 
manofknowledge said:
There is only one Medicare. If you are eligible for one you are eligible for all. Part A is covered without a premium, Part B requires the $125 dollar annual premium, Part C is a private insurance replacement for Parts A, B and D. Part D is pharmacy coverage.
Canada is irrelevant to the conversation. My reference is to current Medicare.

24.7 million Americans still have no health insurance. For them Medicare for All is by far the best solution.

Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

41% of working age Americans have unpaid medical debt. Medicare for All eliminates this drag on the economy.

Survey: 79 Million Americans Have Problems with Medical Bills or Debt | Commonwealth Fund
Click to expand...

You actually just pointed out that there are at least THREE medicares.. Medicare part A.. which you get by virtue of working enough and paying into medicare. That covers hospital, home health and inpatient rehab

Part B requires a premium...and its NOT an annual premium as you stated.. its a monthly premium. It covers outpatient care

The standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B enrollees will be $135.50 for 2019, an increase of $1.50 from $134 in 2018.
Click to expand...

And there is medicare Part D.. which covers drugs.

SO.... there is three (actually more.. but three for laymans purposes)...medicare. So when politicians talk about Medicare for All... we need to be clear what they actually mean.

Particularly when they talk about other countries and their single payer systems (like Canada)… because Canada and most other countries.. their single payer is more like just our medicare part A... in fact.. usually not as comprehensive.

24.7 million Americans still have no health insurance. For them Medicare for All is by far the best solution.
Click to expand...

Not the best for them by far.. but it would cover them. Of course they represent 10% or so of americans. And medicare for all.. probably means a decrease for the other 90%.

41% of working age Americans have unpaid medical debt. Medicare for All eliminates this drag on the economy.
Click to expand...

Not at all. That's an assumption that's not bound in reality.
 
jaeger19 said:
You actually just pointed out that there are at least THREE medicares.. Medicare part A.. which you get by virtue of working enough and paying into medicare. That covers hospital, home health and inpatient rehab

Part B requires a premium...and its NOT an annual premium as you stated.. its a monthly premium. It covers outpatient care

And there is medicare Part D.. which covers drugs.

SO.... there is three (actually more.. but three for laymans purposes)...medicare. So when politicians talk about Medicare for All... we need to be clear what they actually mean.

Particularly when they talk about other countries and their single payer systems (like Canada)… because Canada and most other countries.. their single payer is more like just our medicare part A... in fact.. usually not as comprehensive.

Not the best for them by far.. but it would cover them. Of course they represent 10% or so of americans. And medicare for all.. probably means a decrease for the other 90%.

Not at all. That's an assumption that's not bound in reality.
Click to expand...

If there are three Medicares then why are the coverages refered to as "Parts?"

Standard Medicare with Parts A, B and D or Part C is equivalent to a Silver health insurance plan. Very few people have a health insurance plan that covers more, so no 90% of Americans will not have less coverage. In fact most private plans have higher deductibles and copays than Medicare.

You keep digressing to discussion of other countries. They are irrlevant to any comments I have made.

More people with comprehensive health insurance logically means less medical debt. The costs covered by insurance are not billed to the patient. Yes many people have debt even with health insurance but the debt is more managable.
 
jaeger19 said:
Really... you need to get out a bit more... because we are being compared to other countries..like Canada all the time and told how if we go to a single payer.. then we will have the same savings.

Pretty much yes they do.



as far as Medicaid:

Okay.. I'll bite.. please explain what happens when you reduce GDP by 6%.. In other words..what happens when you reduce our gross national product.. our income if you will.. by 6%.
Click to expand...
1. Comparing to Canada is not saying we will save/spend just as much as Canada. It is dishonest to claim it's the same.

2. Yes, Medicaid has a form. So do other Insurers.

3. GDP doesn't magically disappear
 
manofknowledge said:
If there are three Medicares then why are the coverages refered to as "Parts?"

Standard Medicare with Parts A, B and D or Part C is equivalent to a Silver health insurance plan. Very few people have a health insurance plan that covers more, so no 90% of Americans will not have less coverage. In fact most private plans have higher deductibles and copays than Medicare.

You keep digressing to discussion of other countries. They are irrlevant to any comments I have made.

More people with comprehensive health insurance logically means less medical debt. The costs covered by insurance are not billed to the patient. Yes many people have debt even with health insurance but the debt is more managable.
Click to expand...
Good job. Jaeger has been very sophistic in his posts.

He keeps referring to Canada in order to misrepresent the pro-single payer side as promising that a US SP system will cost the same as Canada's. He says

1. if we cover more than Canada our system will cost more, which he then distorts into "it will be more expensive than what we have now"

And

2. If it covers less, people will have to pay for uncovered services or buy additional coverage which will result in them paying more for their health care (as if Canadians don't have to do that and yet they still spend much less per capita on health care)

IOW, if we cover more, it will be more expensive and if we cover less, it will be more expensive. He does this by comparing the covered costs only if we decide to cover more than Canada does or by comparing Canada's covered costs to the USs covered AND uncovered costs if we cover less than Canada

Also note that he repeatedly insists that the proposals must detail what is covered, implying that the proposals that have been put forward have not done so. This is an outright lie.
 
manofknowledge said:
If there are three Medicares then why are the coverages refered to as "Parts?"

Standard Medicare with Parts A, B and D or Part C is equivalent to a Silver health insurance plan. Very few people have a health insurance plan that covers more, so no 90% of Americans will not have less coverage. In fact most private plans have higher deductibles and copays than Medicare.

You keep digressing to discussion of other countries. They are irrlevant to any comments I have made.

More people with comprehensive health insurance logically means less medical debt. The costs covered by insurance are not billed to the patient. Yes many people have debt even with health insurance but the debt is more managable.
Click to expand...

Because there are three medicare parts. Which as I point out. is not what most single payers are like.

Very few people have a health insurance plan that covers more, so no 90% of Americans will not have less coverage.
Click to expand...

Well.. there is the rub. SO.. if medicare for all.. means that you are actually going to get Medicare part A.. medicare part B for 134 a month..and Medicare part D for another 33.00... why then you are right. This will be BETTER than 90% of americans.

BUT.. guess what? So now.. your coverage is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY.. .. beyond what other countries cover in their single payer. FAR AND AWAY more..

So.. the proposals of medicare for all.. state they are going to get savings... like other single payer countries. How is this possible when what they pay for is far more than what other countries cover?

You keep digressing to discussion of other countries. They are irrlevant to any comments I have made.
Click to expand...

Nope.. not really because the proponents of Medicare for ALL.. are the ones that keep coming up with the savings that other countries have versus the US.

More people with comprehensive health insurance logically means less medical debt. The costs covered by insurance are not billed to the patient. Yes many people have debt even with health insurance but the debt is more managable.
Click to expand...

Less medical debt? perhaps.. but you did not say less..you said :
41% of working age Americans have unpaid medical debt. Medicare for All eliminates this drag on the economy.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it won't eliminate medical debt.
 
sangha said:
1. Comparing to Canada is not saying we will save/spend just as much as Canada. It is dishonest to claim it's the same.

2. Yes, Medicaid has a form. So do other Insurers.

3. GDP doesn't magically disappear
Click to expand...

1. Really.. so what do you think IS the purpose of comparing to Canada and how much THEY spend o the US is? I guess in your mind..its just random comparisons huh?


:doh. No sir..its not random..its a dishonest way of comparing Canada with the US..to say that Medicare for All is going to get the same savings.. "like Canada does".

You are being dishonest if you don't want to admit that. In fact.. I bet THATS exactly what you thought.. until I pointed out to you the difference between Canadian government single payer.. and our current medicare system.

Yes, Medicaid has a form. So do other Insurers.
Click to expand...
:doh First its a MEDICARE form. Sheesh.. can't you even get that right?


Second..as I linked to.. that Medicare form is a standard form that is use by most private insurances.

AND third..and I notice you failed to address this. I linked to research that shows that one of the reasons that physicians don't participate in Medicaid..is because of the administrative hassles. An example that shows that simply going to a government single payer.. doesn't mean its going to save administration costs.

.
GDP doesn't magically disappear
Click to expand...
Oh.. well then... please explain in detail when the countries GDP is reduced by 6%... how that income is still actually in the economy.. despite that the GDP was actually reduced...

this outta be good... :cool:
 
sangha said:
Jaeger has been very sophistic in his posts.

He keeps referring to Canada in order to misrepresent the pro-single payer side as promising that a US SP system will cost the same as Canada's. He says

1. if we cover more than Canada our system will cost more, which he then distorts into "it will be more expensive than what we have now"
Click to expand...

Well lets start with 1.: Ummm.. that's a bald face lie... I never ever stated that its going to be more expensive than we have now. EVER... so stop your lying.

I have instead repeatedly pointed out..that you cannot get the savings of say Canada... or other countries... when your single payer does not work like theirs does and covers exponentially more.

2. If it covers less, people will have to pay for uncovered services or buy additional coverage which will result in them paying more for their health care (as if Canadians don't have to do that and yet they still spend much less per capita on health care)
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. . Canadians do have to do that. So..they either go without.. like what happens here.. ..,, they have to purchase a private plan for additional coverage.. (which means private insurance companies and all that entails)..just like here...OR they get it from their employer just like here...
OR they get coverage from their territory or province.


So.. Canadians have to deal with 1. Not having coverage for outpatient and medications.

2. Having to pay private insurance companies and their rates


3. Having their insurance dependent on where they work (portability problems).


So.. Canadian single payer.. does not solve the problems... that supporters of Medicare for ALL... claim that it does.

Also note that he repeatedly insists that the proposals must detail what is covered, implying that the proposals that have been put forward have not done so. This is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

Nope...sorry but even the article posted points out that the plans don't contain the detail on whats covered.. how it gets paid for..how it gets administered.. etc.
 
jaeger19 said:
1. Really.. so what do you think IS the purpose of comparing to Canada and how much THEY spend o the US is? I guess in your mind..its just random comparisons huh?


:doh. No sir..its not random..its a dishonest way of comparing Canada with the US..to say that Medicare for All is going to get the same savings.. "like Canada does".

You are being dishonest if you don't want to admit that. In fact.. I bet THATS exactly what you thought.. until I pointed out to you the difference between Canadian government single payer.. and our current medicare system.

:doh First its a MEDICARE form. Sheesh.. can't you even get that right?


Second..as I linked to.. that Medicare form is a standard form that is use by most private insurances.

AND third..and I notice you failed to address this. I linked to research that shows that one of the reasons that physicians don't participate in Medicaid..is because of the administrative hassles. An example that shows that simply going to a government single payer.. doesn't mean its going to save administration costs.

. Oh.. well then... please explain in detail when the countries GDP is reduced by 6%... how that income is still actually in the economy.. despite that the GDP was actually reduced...

this outta be good... :cool:
Click to expand...
1. Its mentioned to show that money can be saved; not to show that our results will be identical to Canada's

2. No, not the same form

3. Money doesn't magically disappear from GDP
 
sangha said:
1. Its mentioned to show that money can be saved; not to show that our results will be identical to Canada's

2. No, not the same form

3. Money doesn't magically disappear from GDP
Click to expand...

1. Hmm... so is shows that money can be saved with Canadian single payer... well..so?

Why bring it up if you are not trying to say that your single payer can also get the savings Canada gets?

Unless you are actually trying to be dishonest...which is whats happening.

2.
No, not the same form
Click to expand...
Okay.. I provided evidence that it is the same form/format.. the HCFA 1500.

Please provide evidence that this form is NOT accepted by insurance companies.

. Money doesn't magically disappear from GDP
Click to expand...

Then please in detail.. explain where the money goes..when GDP is reduced by 4-6%? Please explain in detail exactly how and where the reduction of 4-6% of GDP.. is actually still in GDP.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well lets start with 1.: Ummm.. that's a bald face lie... I never ever stated that its going to be more expensive than we have now. EVER... so stop your lying.

I have instead repeatedly pointed out..that you cannot get the savings of say Canada... or other countries... when your single payer does not work like theirs does and covers exponentially more.

That's exactly right. . Canadians do have to do that. So..they either go without.. like what happens here.. ..,, they have to purchase a private plan for additional coverage.. (which means private insurance companies and all that entails)..just like here...OR they get it from their employer just like here...
OR they get coverage from their territory or province.


So.. Canadians have to deal with 1. Not having coverage for outpatient and medications.

2. Having to pay private insurance companies and their rates


3. Having their insurance dependent on where they work (portability problems).


So.. Canadian single payer.. does not solve the problems... that supporters of Medicare for ALL... claim that it does.



Nope...sorry but even the article posted points out that the plans don't contain the detail on whats covered.. how it gets paid for..how it gets administered.. etc.
Click to expand...
You're still lying. No one has ever said single payer solves every problem and there are several bills that detail what is covered
 
sangha said:
You're still lying. No one has ever said single payer solves every problem and there are several bills that detail what is covered
Click to expand...

Nope..sorry sir.. but not lying.

Its even here on this thread and others in here.. about how its going to eliminate people having medical debt.

How its going to make sure everyone has healthcare..

How having insurance is not going to depend on your employer...

Yada yada yada.

And if there are several bills that give all those details...why then it should be easy for you to link to all those bills.. and provide the details of how its going to get paid for.. what exactly is covered and how..and how exactly its going to be administered.

Please provide all that information.

..
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope..sorry sir.. but not lying.

Its even here on this thread and others in here.. about how its going to eliminate people having medical debt.

How its going to make sure everyone has healthcare..

How having insurance is not going to depend on your employer...

Yada yada yada.

And if there are several bills that give all those details...why then it should be easy for you to link to all those bills.. and provide the details of how its going to get paid for.. what exactly is covered and how..and how exactly its going to be administered.

Please provide all that information.

..
Click to expand...
No one has said anything is going to ELIMINATE medical debt
 
sangha said:
No one has said anything is going to ELIMINATE medical debt
Click to expand...

Au contraire:

Manofknowledge said:
41% of working age Americans have unpaid medical debt. Medicare for All eliminates this drag on the economy.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
That quote does NOT say M4A will eliminate medical debt
Click to expand...


Oh.. I am sorry... please explain then exactly what it says if NOT that?

Seems pretty straightforward to me..

41% % of working age Americans have unpaid medical debt. Medicare for All eliminates this drag on the economy.
Click to expand...

Lets see.. 41% of americnas have unpaid medical debt.

Medicare for All..eliminates this....

Hmmm... this.. would seem to refer to medical debt...

But please explain the English of how eliminate this.. does not refer to eliminating medical debt...

What does it refer to then? Eliminating bad puppy breath? Eliminating cold sores?
 
jaeger19 said:
Oh.. I am sorry... please explain then exactly what it says if NOT that?

Seems pretty straightforward to me..



Lets see.. 41% of americnas have unpaid medical debt.

Medicare for All..eliminates this....

Hmmm... this.. would seem to refer to medical debt...

But please explain the English of how eliminate this.. does not refer to eliminating medical debt...

What does it refer to then? Eliminating bad puppy breath? Eliminating cold sores?
Click to expand...
It means M4A would reduce the number of people with medical debt to the point that it wouldn't be a drag on the economy
 
chuckiechan said:
Nice job. IMO, it's a bridge too far because we have unenforced borders on our "poverty" border. So if anything, it will be an "averaging" of care, with people like me buying a supplemental, like the Advantage Plan as it's called here in California for Medicare. But even with secure borders, we have too many people not contributing to the system to not bankrupt the nation.

Did they include a "how to pay for it" chart? They always forget that part.
Click to expand...

"How to pay for it" is a hilarious question considering every single instance of UHC in the history of the planet has been dramatically cheaper than what the US is doing right now.

How to pay for it? All of the dollars you and your employer spend currently on private insurance instead go to the new system. Bang. Paid for, with billions left over every year for whatever else we want. Sound good?
 
Deuce said:
"How to pay for it" is a hilarious question considering every single instance of UHC in the history of the planet has been dramatically cheaper than what the US is doing right now.

How to pay for it? All of the dollars you and your employer spend currently on private insurance instead go to the new system. Bang. Paid for, with billions left over every year for whatever else we want. Sound good?
Click to expand...
According to jaeger, the money we don't spend on health care will just magically disappear from the economy, driving GDP down.

He doesn't realize that the money we save will be spent on other things
 
sangha said:
It means M4A would reduce the number of people with medical debt to the point that it wouldn't be a drag on the economy
Click to expand...

BWWWAAAHHHH....

Its so fun watching you twist yourself up in knots.
 
jaeger19 said:
Oh.. I am sorry... please explain then exactly what it says if NOT that?

Seems pretty straightforward to me..



Lets see.. 41% of americnas have unpaid medical debt.

Medicare for All..eliminates this....

Hmmm... this.. would seem to refer to medical debt...

But please explain the English of how eliminate this.. does not refer to eliminating medical debt...

What does it refer to then? Eliminating bad puppy breath? Eliminating cold sores?
Click to expand...

Maybe this will clarify:
Ten years ago John Johnson gets in a car wreck. Him and his wife badly hurt, rack up a big bill. M4A doesn't automatically just clear their debt. That's still a debt owned to a currently-existing company. Hypothetically we could get the government to settle/pay off those debts when M4A is implemented, but that's not some inherent aspect of the proposal.

What M4A does do is eliminate this problem going forward. Your six year old getting leukemia no longer saddles your family with lifelong, crippling debt.
 
Deuce said:
Maybe this will clarify:
Ten years ago John Johnson gets in a car wreck. Him and his wife badly hurt, rack up a big bill. M4A doesn't automatically just clear their debt. That's still a debt owned to a currently-existing company. Hypothetically we could get the government to settle/pay off those debts when M4A is implemented, but that's not some inherent aspect of the proposal.

What M4A does do is eliminate this problem going forward. Your six year old getting leukemia no longer saddles your family with lifelong, crippling debt.
Click to expand...

Depends on your version of Medicare for ALL.

Your six year old gets leukemia... and in some countries version of single payer..like Canada.. their government payer doesn't pay for outpatient medications... so you may end up with a huge bill.

There is the crux...just simply saying.. Single payer.. or medicare for all... doesn't eliminate out of pocket costs.


In fact.. lets say that there is medicare part A, part D and PArt B as all medicare…


Well.. medications under part D.. have copays etc.. so there may be an out of pocket cost.


Where if that same child was poor and under Medicaid.. there would be no out of pocket costs at all.


The same with outpatient treatments. Medicare covers at 80%.


Medicaid.. at 100%... so a poor family..might be MORE likely to have crippling debt under medicare for all.


There really is no free, easy lunch here. Especially if you want to get the savings like in other countries.
 
jaeger19 said:
Depends on your version of Medicare for ALL.

Your six year old gets leukemia... and in some countries version of single payer..like Canada.. their government payer doesn't pay for outpatient medications... so you may end up with a huge bill.

There is the crux...just simply saying.. Single payer.. or medicare for all... doesn't eliminate out of pocket costs.


In fact.. lets say that there is medicare part A, part D and PArt B as all medicare…


Well.. medications under part D.. have copays etc.. so there may be an out of pocket cost.


Where if that same child was poor and under Medicaid.. there would be no out of pocket costs at all.


The same with outpatient treatments. Medicare covers at 80%.


Medicaid.. at 100%... so a poor family..might be MORE likely to have crippling debt under medicare for all.


There really is no free, easy lunch here. Especially if you want to get the savings like in other countries.
Click to expand...
The M4A Bill's cover prescription drugs.

Your lies are worthless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom