Ocasio-Cortez calls question about how to pay for Medicare for all ‘puzzling’

[manofknowledge]

I viewed this You-Tube video some time ago from some guys who tried to use Canadian single-payor healthcare and ran into many horror stories of Canadian single-payor healthcare. Wish I could locate it for you for your perusal.

For example, they ran into a Canadian woman who told the story of her mother who had to have both her feet amputated because the system wasn't quick enough to solve her leg problems in time. In fact, she said Canadian single-payor healthcare suggested her mother have, at least, one of her feet amputated.

Then, in the same video, the men came to a Canadian health clinic to ask for an appointment and was given a time about a year hence. The men complained to the 'triage-person' and the 'triage-person' suggested they go to an American healthcare facility if they were willing to pay cash.

Like the analogy I used, single-payor healthcare is cheap and covers everyone but the actual cost is quality of healthcare. No thanks.

Anecdotes are irrelevant. There are thousands of horror stories about the American health care system.

 

[manofknowledge]

Very little compared to other countries.

sorry man.. but there simply are reasons that their healthcare costs less.. its not magic.

This country rations healthcare by wealth. There are millions of people with no access to medical care due to lack of financial resources.

 

[cabse5]

Anecdotes are irrelevant. There are thousands of horror stories about the American health care system.

The wait time for, for example, Canadian healthcare is a horror story and isn't anecdotal. People still actually prefer to come to an American healthcare facility and pay cash compared to the wait of Canadian single-payor healthcare.

 

[GottaGo]

We have no dental insurance. We get a discount, just because payment is immediate. I think it's about 20%.

Insurance middle-men are not a necessary evil. They are unnecessary, with Single Payer. This alone, will drive down costs substantially.

In Single payer, exactly what do you consider the government's roll, if not a 'middleman'? They collect your money (via taxes?) and dole it out to providers. In the mean time, there are administrative costs that suck off the top.

How about insurance be optional, and we all go back to paying our providers directly, and work out reduced rates where we can? That way the providers can eliminate the overhead cost of people to file and track insurance claims and payments.

 

[GottaGo]

This country rations healthcare by wealth. There are millions of people with no access to medical care due to lack of financial resources.

False. Currently, no one is turned away from an ER.

 

[cabse5]

This country rations healthcare by wealth. There are millions of people with no access to medical care due to lack of financial resources.

Well, employers used to provide healthcare (if they did so) so someone had to have a job in America. Now it's up to the American gov't for healthcare. ACA healthcare was a bomb and the vacuum created by no ACA healthcare is also a bomb.

 

[cabse5]

False. Currently, no one is turned away from an ER.

Correct. One of the justifications of ACA. To help pay for all the rising costs of ER visits.

 

[Praxas]

You are absolutely, completely full of ****. Most people in the US wait months or years for specialty appointments and surgeries. You do not get a surgery appointment within a week. If you're going to lie, lie realistically.

Never mind the 10's of millions of Americans with infinite wait time because they can't afford any healthcare at all.

That is simply not true either. When I broke the right humerus bone in my shoulder, I had a surgery appointment 4 days later. It has to do more where you live than anything. I live in Reno, NV and it may be different than say Denver, CO but it does happen.

Also in regards to specialty appointments it depends on what the specialty is and where you live. My wife, who has MS, has a neurology doctor that she sees regularly and if she has any issues can get an appointment with her within a few days. Again, that might be different in a very large city but it does happen.

 

[Praxas]

Well, employers used to provide healthcare (if they did so) so someone had to have a job in America. Now it's up to the American gov't for healthcare. ACA healthcare was a bomb and the vacuum created by no ACA healthcare is also a bomb.

The ACA wasn't a bomb, it was incomplete and needed tweeks to it. Republicans flat out refused, however, it obviously isn't the bomb Republicans thought it was because now they are saying they support the pre-existing condition clause and some are even admitting single-payer is inevitable. Your boy Trump even touted Medicare for all during his campaign.

 

[GottaGo]

Not really sure what overhead you are referring to as medical billing/claims processing is extremely complicated for medicare claims and requires tons of annual training.



Not really sure where you are getting monthly waiting times for specialtys; its typically between 7-10 days. Surgical appointments are 1-2 months out only when requiring the consult and pre-op work efforts.

It depends on the specialist, and the geographical location.

Personal anecdote - 12 years ago I had need to see an endocrinologist. Best recommended had a 6 week delay for an appointment. After waiting 4 weeks, the situation became critical, and they found time for me that week.

Think of it like a high end restaurant.... the best is usually not going to have room for you at the drop of a hat. You want to 'eat' at just any burger joint, then no problem.

I'm not willing to put my healthcare into the hands of the government, and neither are many other people.

 

[GottaGo]

Correct. One of the justifications of ACA. To help pay for all the rising costs of ER visits.

But what some don't see is that paying for 'insurance' doesn't actually provide 'care'. Insurance is a front loaded payment mechanism, no matter if the person receives care or not. At least the ER is providing care. I've posted many times the options other than the PPACA or just keeping the ER situation, but no one seems to understand that in order for people to actually seek care when they need it or preventative care, then need a physical access point.

 

[cabse5]

The ACA wasn't a bomb, it was incomplete and needed tweeks to it. Republicans flat out refused, however, it obviously isn't the bomb Republicans thought it was because now they are saying they support the pre-existing condition clause and some are even admitting single-payer is inevitable. Your boy Trump even touted Medicare for all during his campaign.

IMO, supporting the pre-existing clause of ACA didn't warrant the destruction of the previous healthcare system funded by businesses for employees.

For example, patients with pre-existing conditions could've been given Medicaid by the gov't. That would've kept the previous healthcare system maintained by businesses AND provided for patients with pre-existing conditions. I realize the expansion of Medicaid would've made some fiscal conservatives uneasy with this expansion of the federal debt but...what about the expansion of the debt caused by refunding the military?

The previous healthcare is gone never to be replaced because the federal gov't has said they'll provide healthcare. What a shame. And is a vacuum.

 

[maxparrish]

Wrong. In Germany I pick my insurance company and doctors and I get full coverage including dental at a fraction of what you pay. You don't have facts, only your feelings based on your lack of experience and knowledge on the subject.



You are absolutely, completely full of ****. Most people in the US wait months or years for specialty appointments and surgeries. You do not get a surgery appointment within a week. If you're going to lie, lie realistically.

Never mind the 10's of millions of Americans with infinite wait time because they can't afford any healthcare at all.

As far as wait times, historically it had not even been noticed in the US. The first time I ran across it as an issue, was in literature on Canada (brought to public awareness by a court suit by a fellow that had been waiting two years for hip surgery).

Since then the OECD has recognized wait times to be an issue in many, but not all, member countries AND not an issue for a few, such as the US.

And as we are discussing personal experience, let me add that I've never had a problem with my health care provider. Within a few days after my PSA test suggesting possible cancer, I met with my GP. ONE DAY LATER, I met with my specialist, my uro. Two or three days later I had my biop. Ten days later the doctor gave me the results (yep cancer).

So I told my uro that I wanted to look at "robotic" assisted surgery, and interview a surgeon and a radiation oncologist before I decided the treatment. Appointments were immediately set up, I saw them over the next several weeks and finally decided to opt for robotic assisted surgery. I picked my surgeon (the one I interviewed) and several weeks later it was done.

I've been in this HMO for 30 years and never had the slightest delay in seeing specialists or getting tests (and these days I often get same day results on blood tests via email). I can pick from a large selection of doctors, and have no complaints about medical services.

 

[cabse5]

But what some don't see is that paying for 'insurance' doesn't actually provide 'care'. Insurance is a front loaded payment mechanism, no matter if the person receives care or not. At least the ER is providing care. I've posted many times the options other than the PPACA or just keeping the ER situation, but no one seems to understand that in order for people to actually seek care when they need it or preventative care, then need a physical access point.

Yes. Why the guy that I assume is from the EU thinks single-payor is great because everyone is covered (and cheaply) even though access to actual care is horrendous, IMO

 

[OldFatGuy]

I've been in this HMO for 30 years and never had the slightest delay in seeing specialists or getting tests (and these days I often get same day results on blood tests via email). I can pick from a large selection of doctors, and have no complaints about medical services.

I agree with you. Prior to retiring, I never had a problem with waiting to see a provider of my choice, in or out of network. Granted I had a policy which allowed for out of network providers, but that does not reflect on wait time. I assumed wait periods would increase as I shifted to medicare, that has not been the case. I have maintained all provider relationships I had previously. Two of my doctors do not accept coverage from any insurers, but after payment upfront their staffs file claims in behalf of clients. These are high end specialist with major clientele, and provide services with the least wait times. Considering the reimbursement they receive from insurers including Medicare, I don't blame them. Plus the private insurers have a habit of not paying providers, forcing providers to sue, accepting a settlement and paying a lawyer. Nasty.

I recently enjoyed an unplanned 9 day hospital stay. More than a dozen specialists treated me. I saw the same for most of the patients in the section I was in. The exception was a patient who needed treatment from a half dozen or so additional specialists, including one from outside the hospital staff and associations. I still need another procedure, but my cardiologist wanted me to gain strength before we plan the next move. I will conference with him this coming Tuesday, after his examination and evaluation, within two to three weeks another specialist will perform the procedure they advise for the best outcome. Not a wait caused by provider availability, just my own condition.

Even with the ACA, the problem remains, too many people rely on unnecessary ER treatment, and despite hospital urgings, no follow up care, meaning they soon return for longer stays. This is a habit that must be broken, whatever the cause and it cannot be blamed on providers.

 

[Praxas]

IMO, supporting the pre-existing clause of ACA didn't warrant the destruction of the previous healthcare system funded by businesses for employees.

For example, patients with pre-existing conditions could've been given Medicaid by the gov't. That would've kept the previous healthcare system maintained by businesses AND provided for patients with pre-existing conditions. I realize the expansion of Medicaid would've made some fiscal conservatives uneasy with this expansion of the federal debt but...what about the expansion of the debt caused by refunding the military?

The previous healthcare is gone never to be replaced because the federal gov't has said they'll provide healthcare. What a shame. And is a vacuum.

Nobody, especially Republicans, wanted to address Healthcare at all so this is what we got. Thanks to the ACA, my wife is continually able to walk and has her cognitive ability intact even though she has MS.

There were probably better ways to do things but Republicans flat out refused to address anything.

 

[Herkamer63]

Yet... you’re office accepts Medicare. Because it’s making you money.

Reminds me of the old joke of the guy complaining about a restaurant: ‘the food is terrible, and worse, the portions are so small!’

Yes we do, but we can't live on Medicare payments alone. As I said before, they don't pay us much. We take other insurances as well because, as sad as it sounds, we have no choice. We have everyone believing that they NEED to have health insurance in order to be seen and it's simply not true. We don't rake in millions of dollars everyday. We get lucky to get in $1000 in one day (9:00 AM - 5:30 PM, with lunch from noon -1:30 PM). We wait on insurance to pay us our due, and when they pay it can be a decent amount (a higher volume is needed), but that doesn't isn't enough for staff of 5 people. And, again, when we're one of the only providers in town that take Medicaid, so that typically means these people don't pay. Even many people on private insurance want to pay next to nothing. On top of that, believe it or not, doctors are people too. Our doctor IS the business owner. He has to pay his staff, electric bills, gas bills, property tax, business tax, his own license, vendor bills, the company he's using for HMR, shipping for product coming in, buying group fees, his home bills, home taxes, home property tax, his federal, state, and local taxes, food, vehicle, and then whatever he gets on his free time. He, and all business owners out there, are the last people get paid at the end of the day.

I don't expect everyone to understand because they're not in the position nor the field that me, my co-workers, and our doctor is in. But, other than the health aspect of it, all the things I named costs money and it isn't cheap. Our doctor doesn't make millions. He's never been rich. He's someone trying to make a living out of something he loves to do. When you have the government and the insurance companies breathing down your neck on practically everything you do, it makes life harder. The lack of payments is one of the top problems and NO ONE, regardless if they're conservative, liberal, or moderate, is listening to business owners nor the doctors listening to what they have to say about things like this "Medicare For All" crap. Insurance companies are bad enough when it comes to payments, but Medicare is FAR worse. We may not see a dime from Medicare until 2-3 months later (sometimes longer than that). We can't make a living off of a system like that. Business owners (small or big) and their businesses can't survive that, regardless of what the field of work is. There's already other important matters (many of which I listed in the last paragraph) that they have to worry about, and a system that will cost $30 trillion will ruin them and their employees.

Sure, we'll continue to take Medicare, but when a check of only $900 comes in after a few months, it's not a reliable source of income nor a way of life.

 

[jaeger19]

We have no dental insurance. We get a discount, just because payment is immediate. I think it's about 20%.

Insurance middle-men are not a necessary evil. They are unnecessary, with Single Payer. This alone, will drive down costs substantially.

You might need to check your facts.. most countries with "single payer".. also have private insurance companies to fill in all the gaps that single payer doesn't cover.

 

[jaeger19]

This country rations healthcare by wealth. There are millions of people with no access to medical care due to lack of financial resources.

Yeah.. not true actually.. since you still have access to medical care if you have no resources.

In fact.. if you truly lack financial resources.. you most likely qualify for Medicaid.. which does ration care.. but way less than most other countries do. Medicaid pays for way more and has more access to a wider range of services.. than most single payer plans from other countries.

 

[Deuce]

Very little compared to other countries.

sorry man.. but there simply are reasons that their healthcare costs less.. its not magic.

Our system rations healthcare by not giving it to a large chunk of the population.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

As far as wait times, historically it had not even been noticed in the US. The first time I ran across it as an issue, was in literature on Canada (brought to public awareness by a court suit by a fellow that had been waiting two years for hip surgery).

Since then the OECD has recognized wait times to be an issue in many, but not all, member countries AND not an issue for a few, such as the US.

And as we are discussing personal experience, let me add that I've never had a problem with my health care provider. Within a few days after my PSA test suggesting possible cancer, I met with my GP. ONE DAY LATER, I met with my specialist, my uro. Two or three days later I had my biop. Ten days later the doctor gave me the results (yep cancer).

So I told my uro that I wanted to look at "robotic" assisted surgery, and interview a surgeon and a radiation oncologist before I decided the treatment. Appointments were immediately set up, I saw them over the next several weeks and finally decided to opt for robotic assisted surgery. I picked my surgeon (the one I interviewed) and several weeks later it was done.

I've been in this HMO for 30 years and never had the slightest delay in seeing specialists or getting tests (and these days I often get same day results on blood tests via email). I can pick from a large selection of doctors, and have no complaints about medical services.

In Germany neither I nor anyone I know has had any substantial waits, especially for critical surgeries, yet we have 100% of all Germans covered for less than half the per capita cost the US is paying. Germany ranks higher in healthcare outcomes, a lower infant mortality rate, and a longer life span. You sound like you have a pretty good healthcare plan, but most Americans don't, and there are tens of millions that can't see a doctor at all and tens of millions more who go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills. It's heartbreaking and unnecessary.

I viewed this You-Tube video some time ago from some guys who tried to use Canadian single-payor healthcare and ran into many horror stories of Canadian single-payor healthcare. Wish I could locate it for you for your perusal.

For example, they ran into a Canadian woman who told the story of her mother who had to have both her feet amputated because the system wasn't quick enough to solve her leg problems in time. In fact, she said, Canadian single-payor healthcare suggested her mother have, at least, one of her feet amputated.

Then, in the same video, the men came to a Canadian health clinic to ask for an appointment and was given a time about a year hence. The men complained to the 'triage-person' and the 'triage-person' suggested they go to an American healthcare facility if they were willing to pay cash.

Like the analogy I used, single-payor healthcare is cheap and covers everyone but the actual cost is quality of healthcare in time. No thanks.

For every Canadian medical horror story you find me, I could find you 10 more American medical horror stories, many of which would including people who can NEVER see a doctor, and at the end of the day the US system still costs more.

Yes. Why the guy that I assume is from the EU thinks single-payor is great because everyone is covered (and cheaply) even though access to actual care is horrendous, IMO

Total and complete nonsense. We have unlimited access to care in Europe. Tens of millions of Americans have ZERO access to care and tens of millions more are financially ruined from medical bills. How the **** is that access to actual care?

By all means, tell us about your extensive experience in the European healthcare systems. Tell us some personal horror stories.

That is simply not true either. When I broke the right humerus bone in my shoulder, I had a surgery appointment 4 days later. It has to do more where you live than anything. I live in Reno, NV and it may be different than say Denver, CO but it does happen.

Also in regards to specialty appointments it depends on what the specialty is and where you live. My wife, who has MS, has a neurology doctor that she sees regularly and if she has any issues can get an appointment with her within a few days. Again, that might be different in a very large city but it does happen.

Obviously emergencies are different. I meant elective or non-time critical surgeries. Most Americans can not get the average specialty appointment in the same week they make the appointment, that's unrealistic.

 

[Casca XV]

Wrong. In Germany I pick my insurance company and doctors and I get full coverage including dental at a fraction of what you pay. You don't have facts, only your feelings based on your lack of experience and knowledge on the subject.



You are absolutely, completely full of ****. Most people in the US wait months or years for specialty appointments and surgeries. You do not get a surgery appointment within a week. If you're going to lie, lie realistically.

Never mind the 10's of millions of Americans with infinite wait time because they can't afford any healthcare at all.

It must be miserable to have to constantly lie to make your point.

 

[maxparrish]

IMO, supporting the pre-existing clause of ACA didn't warrant the destruction of the previous healthcare system funded by businesses for employees.

For example, patients with pre-existing conditions could've been given Medicaid by the gov't. That would've kept the previous healthcare system maintained by businesses AND provided for patients with pre-existing conditions. I realize the expansion of Medicaid would've made some fiscal conservatives uneasy with this expansion of the federal debt but...what about the expansion of the debt caused by refunding the military?

The previous healthcare is gone never to be replaced because the federal gov't has said they'll provide healthcare. What a shame. And is a vacuum.

I agree. Even without consideration of philosophical objections to Obamacare, as a social program it is one of the most Rube Goldberg-ian and inefficient messes of any entitlement program. All that needed to be done was:

1). Fund pre-existing conditions insurance through a separate program risk pool, not affecting the premiums of millions of others. (I believe the transition program at Obamacare's inception had this feature, and it worked okay).

2). Provide graduated percentage rebate health care subsidies on health insurance to whatever income level desired.

3). Fund both through income taxes starting at whatever income bracket desired.

Instead we got this expansive mess with useless and needless "exchanges", carbon copy government mandated 'pot metal' policies, taxes on premiums, income tax fines for non-compliance, and government constructed cost penalties for the young, males, and the healthy - as well as for healthy individuals living in the wrong zip code.

The difference between the simple system that could have been implemented, and the current system is not over welfare or coverage, its over control of choice. Obamacare advocates used the excuse to tell people what policies they could buy, what policies could be sold, who gets charged more (or less), and what providers must do. The goal was not the variety of he marketplace but, as much as possible, one-size fits all.

Hence, quite a few got screwed for the benefit of others.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Our current system rations healthcare.

Sorry, but that left wing canard is bogus. Using that goofy logic, one could suggest that all commerce on the planet is rationed. Learn what rationing is and then we can have a discussion

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

1). Fund pre-existing conditions insurance through a separate program risk pool, not affecting the premiums of millions of others. (I believe the transition program at Obamacare's inception had this feature, and it worked okay).

.

Which means that the government becomes the giant dumping ground for every high risk patient. Secondly.. since just about everyone after the age of thirty has a "pre existing condition".. it would mean that most folks are on government subsidized healthcare.

Provide graduated percentage rebate health care subsidies on health insurance to whatever income level desired.

And once the insurance companies realize the government is o the hook.. they will jack up prices to take advantage of the increase demand that the government represents...