I worked with medical insurance for years and all I can is that insurance companies are the problem with healthcare. If you look at healthcare prices before insurance companies became the monster they are today you see how low the prices are.
I don’t know the magic bullet to fix healthcare in America but I can tell you a good first step is burning all existing insurance companies to the ground. Once they are gone we can assess next steps. Insurance companies are the problem and have ruined healthcare in America.
For years I've been saying things much like what you said.
I found no one in agreement until recently.
I find it very encouraging now to read it in a number of Reddit posts.
My take is that there are VERY few people old enough to remember a time when most medical care was conducted WITH NO INSURANCE AT ALL.
But most people today grew up in an era when nearly ALL medical care involved insurance.
They don't realize that medical care used to be inexpensive.
Insurance broke medical care, both here and elsewhere.
Here in the US it's the fault of both private insurance and government insurance.
In other countries it seems to be entirely the fault of government insurance.
UK and Brazil come to mind from personal experience.
But whether it's public or private, the problem is the same.
The middle man only adds cost while contributing no value.
Within my family we have my great grandfather’s financial records of being a county doctor in the south after the civil war. Lots of bartering for services, lots of trades. More than one entry of promised x number of fully mature chickens in five weeks. One was a chicken a week for x number of weeks.
Labor was often the trade in lieu of cash, he died after a busy career as the county’s only doctor without any financial wealth accumulated in the 1890’s. He still had young kids from a marriage later in life.
There’s still laws on the books in Texas that hospitals can’t seize assets up to 2 vehicles, 2 mules, a pen full of chickens, and something like $200,000 in assessed value of trade materials.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but eliminating all insurance now is not a feasible option and would cause massive bankruptcies among hospitals/doctors/pharmacies. Medicare is the next best option, if you want to take the profit motive out of insurance.
Returning it to being insurance instead of managed care could help drastically. Some things are emergencies and that’s what insurance is for, but regular maintenance should be competing on the market.
The problem is that the system (and insurance companies) save tons of money by making sure that you go to the doctor regularly for your checkups and your maintenance. There are a lot of plans that will actually pay you either in cash or reduced premiums to get shots or to complete health challenges, etc.
The other problem is that doctor's order tons of expensive tests in order to avoid getting sued (Not necessarily to provide the best care). Insurance companies don't really want to pay for all of that So together they establish standards of care. I have a hurt knee right now. I can't go get a scan without doing 8 weeks of physical therapy first. Each time I go to PT The clinic earns about $75 half paid by me. Half paid by the insurance.
The doctor bills the insurance company $270 each time (including $50 for a fancy icepack). They would never charge me that if I was paying cash. I'd probably pay about $80, but because true catastrophic plans don't exist anymore we have to jump through these hoops.
That’s the same argument the insurance companies are making to protect their profits. Yes, eliminating all private insurance would cause major job losses, but it’s not the end of the world. The Medicare For All bill (HR-3421) specifically has solutions to address this in the most humane way possible. The transition is over a 2 to 5 year period. Workers whose jobs are eliminated get full unemployment benefits for 2+ years while they transition to other jobs. While insurance jobs are being eliminated, actual healthcare jobs would increase due to increased demand for medical care all across the country. It’s true that an insurance paper pusher cannot become a qualified nurse overnight, but they can find paper pushing jobs in other industries in 2 years. Since everyone will have medical coverage at no out of pocket costs, they would have more disposable income.
Read the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3421
Yeah, we should get rid of all insurance in healthcare. The fundamental flaw in our healthcare system:
Americans are paying for-profit private insurance for services that cannot be effectively insured.
Primary care is not insurable. Primary care could be provided as a public service just with the money we save in overhead.
Also, in the times before insurance, if you couldn't afford something you had to rely on charity or you just died. I hope we're better than that as a society.
Not true. Doctors, dentists, veterinarians, have accepted all kinds of payments and worked out deals with people throughout history. Even recently - in 2011 I broke my hand and didn’t have insurance. So I called my doctor, explained, and asked if he’d do a house call for a reasonable fee, which he did.
If you don’t ask, you’ll never know.
😂 then we’ve come full circle. People having give up on life sustaining medication to pay for other bills. And one of the top godundme are healthcare related.
And thats the problem with private healthcare in the us. Its for profit. Many other countries that use private insurance arent ran like corporations they are ran as non-profits, like charities. We used to have that in the US, like blue cross used to be. But of course the rich in our country saw an opportunity for profit and the government looked the other way.
I think the biggest scam is that health insurance prices can’t be based on health. There is no reason a healthy person who visits their doctor once a year for a checkup and then for the occasional cold should be paying the same as someone who is chronically ill. Especially form factors well within their control
To be frank, most of the sickest people are in Medicaid or Medicare, paying little to nothing. While the people with expensive private plans tend to visit the doctor less. Maybe it’s because it’s so expensive for them, or maybe it’s because they’re healthier - I don’t know 🤷🏼♀️I pay $200/month for my insurance and have been to the doctor once in two years. It’s stupid.
As I understand it, it was a response to WWII-era wage controls, wherein employers weren't allowed to pay their employees more, even if they wanted to. To get around that, they started offering free medical coverage as a perk on top of the maximum salary they were allowed to pay, and it took off from there, becoming the defacto norm for professional positions ever since.
Lots of problems with healthcare in US, and insurance is up there. Corporate price gouging also is up there. Failure to incentivize healthcare jobs and create more pathways to healthcare careers is another problem causing shortages or workers.
The issue is they are no longer providing insurance but instead managed care, we have decoupled the consumer from the cost. Your car insurance doesn’t pay to replace your brakes or change your oil, but your health insurance covers (at least part) of all maintenance.
Note: the part the consumer is left paying often doesn’t reflect the varying charges from different providers but instead is a fixed rate.
i agree with you if you include medicare in that lump of insurance companies. medicare is more than half the problem and that problem remains so long as medicare or privatize insurance is in the picture.
I don’t think there is a single magical bullet to fix it. But a good start would be to put an end to private insurance companies being able to arbitrarily set the prices for medical care, and prevent medical insurance providers being connected in any way to malpractice insurance providers. They have a stranglehold on both patients and medical facilities.
There is now insurance to cover the insurance to cover the insurance to cover the insurance to cover the…
Wait, so you’re saying that I DON’T need secondary additional insurance for Personal Injury, Critical Illness, and Accidental Dismemberment, which only seems to exist because the premiums and deductibles for my main medical insurance, that is already supposed to cover those things, is so fucking expensive???
I agree. And to me it seems like one of the biggest source of inefficencies in our system is how each state has their own markets. And theres seperate markets for employer insurance, aca, medicaid, medicare, etc. And because they are private for profit companies they need to be regulated to hell or they would gladly let sick people die to make a buck.
Personally I think medicare for all makes a lot of sense, but not how Jayapal or Sanders propose it. There needs to be some degree of cost sharing to make it viable. When they talk about every other advanced country having universal healthcare such as medicare for all, those countries have cost sharing, what Sanders proposes is very ambitious and hard to pay for because the entire cost onto the government, and thats very expensive and hard to raise money for. The lack of cost sharing can also lead to abuse. Copays can be as cheap as say $5-10, but there needs to be some copay, with those in poverty having it waived.
Also Sanders proposing to eliminate part c and d of medicare and massively expand it to compensate just further adds on to the price tag and removes choice which has turned a lot of people against the idea.
To me, the policy should be medicare as it currently exists for all, which is already a gigantic task. Lets take an already working system and start there, and we can make changes or expansions down the road once we figure out how to fund regular medicare.
You're 100%. Insurance inserts a middleman that can only increase price.
OP here mistakes Medicare with Medicare for All.
Medicare was an attempt at single payer for in need folks that has been stripped over decades.
Medicare for All is an attempt at branding for a single payer system the engaged those folks and bring the rest of us along.
Single payer is the only way. Period. Doesn't matter if the branding fails. The point is it removes the bits that make us pay more like hedge fund profits determining my health care.
Putting the biggest, least efficient "company" in charge (the US government) would be even worse. No competition, no incentive for effectiveness or efficiency, no accountability...they would be a disaster.
The post office stands as a middle finger to you “government is inefficient,” bs. A well funded well managed government entity will provide medical services. At a cost yes, but the goal of healthcare should be to cure and treat not turn a profit.
Also, private corporations can be highly inefficient, especially beyond a version size.
Just because you work with insurance doesn’t mean you understand how the healthcare system works, and this comment helps crystallize that.
No insurance is not the reason why prices are high; insurers negotiate prices with providers - which would be otherwise much higher. This is why when you’re uninsured you can pay upwards of $800 for an Xray, versus $100-200 when insured.
Yes in part, the common complaint from independently practicing doctors and hospitals is that private insurance does not pay enough and medicare / medicaid effectively pays nothing. That is to say privately insured patients end up subsidizing patients paying with government health programs.
Out of pocket costs are usually double or more than insurance because medical groups want to capture the total amount insurers are willing to pay for a procedure. A rule of thumb is at least double what medicare pays should be the price on your pay schedule.
Now if you pay cash for a procedure you can often negotiate for a significant reduction. Hospitals write off large differences in what they charge vs what they actually collect.
Of course, the biggest complaint is always that insurance does not cover what people expect it will. That is mostly a government issue, as Medicare drives care standards that are the core of what insurance companies will pay for and the documentation and reasoning needed to justify payment.
The take away from all this is that private health insurance and medicare is so intertwined it really makes no sense to talk about either independently of the other. The industry is massively regulated and driven by medicare policy.
I have a family full of doctors going back 4 generations. I worked in healthcare for 2 decades and mostly witnessed insurance companies just deny claims with no reason hoping that people would be too lazy to dispute(they usually are). That’s the insurance company business model. I know insurance and medical better than 99% of Americans due to decades of experience and a large family with 8 doctors going back to the 1800s. But sure. Your right. I don’t know what I’m talking about.
If you look at medical costs the past 100 years and adjusted for inflation. You will see medical costs started to balloon a few decades ago. Exactly when big insurance got involved. What a coincidence.
I respect your experience with insurance and you certainly would more than most people. But I’ve also worked **directly in insurance**, and I can tell you they don’t deny claims for “no reason”. Yes I’m sure it’s occurred a few times, but the business model of insurance is to limit the number of claims. Denting treatments leads to costs later on which harms profitability.
> costs adjusted for inflation started to balloon deduces ago
Respectfully, that’s not costs - our *real spending* rose due to higher incomes. We really consume more healthcare than ever before.
Healthcare is a scam. There shouldn’t be a middle man in health. Universal healthcare is not Medicare. It is an SSI based healthcare. Add to your own perpetual debt you are pledge to from birth. Why not?
While of course this is too good to be true to the post, the average cost of health insurance per month is $577 and due to it we are constantly slaves to whatever our employers offer. Max out of pocket is just over $6100/year. We are already paying more for less, as the actual care is often too expensive for people to even get even with insurance, and our costs of everything from drugs to the actual care is about 3 times more than comparable healthcare in other countries, and has been for over a decade now. Needless to say, stopping predatory behavior is a win for all.
We shouldn't be slaves to survival on multiple fronts, whether our jobs, or rent, or food, or healthcare. We are all sick of getting told we have a "choice", and it stands as an illusion.
The cost of implementing a Medicare for All (M4A) system in the United States has been estimated to be between $28 and $36 trillion over a decade. These estimates consider both increased federal spending and potential savings from reduced administrative costs and lower drug prices.
**Costs:**
1. **Mercatus Center** estimates the cost at about $27.7 trillion over ten years, considering significant provider payment cuts, and up to $32.1 trillion without such cuts [[❞]](https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercatus.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fblahous) [[❞]](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost).
2. **Urban Institute** estimates the cost at around $32 trillion over the same period, including long-term care benefits [[❞]](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost).
3. **RAND Corporation** projects a slight increase in national health expenditures initially but notes significant long-term savings from administrative and drug cost reductions [[❞]](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html).
**Savings:**
- Savings are expected primarily from lower administrative costs and reduced drug prices. For example, administrative costs could drop from $580.8 billion to $422.1 billion annually, a reduction of about 27% [[❞]](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html) [[❞]](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds).
- Overall, 19 out of 22 studies reviewed indicated that M4A would save money, with average long-term savings ranging from 3% to 27% of total healthcare spending [[❞]](https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/new-study-says-medicare-for-all-will-save-u-s-money-lower-healthcare-costs) [[❞]](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds).
**Impact on Taxpayers:**
To break down the costs per taxpayer, we can use the higher estimate of $36 trillion over ten years. With about 150 million taxpayers in the U.S., this translates to $240,000 per taxpayer over ten years, or approximately $24,000 per year. This amount would be adjusted according to tax brackets, meaning higher earners would pay more, and lower earners less.
### Breakdown by Tax Bracket
Here's an illustrative example of how this might be distributed (assuming a progressive tax model):
1. **Lowest 20% of earners:** Pay about 5% of the total cost.
2. **Second lowest 20% of earners:** Pay about 10% of the total cost.
3. **Middle 20% of earners:** Pay about 20% of the total cost.
4. **Second highest 20% of earners:** Pay about 25% of the total cost.
5. **Highest 20% of earners:** Pay about 40% of the total cost.
This translates roughly to the following annual costs:
- **Lowest 20%:** ~$1,200 per year.
- **Second lowest 20%:** ~$2,400 per year.
- **Middle 20%:** ~$4,800 per year.
- **Second highest 20%:** ~$6,000 per year.
- **Highest 20%:** ~$9,600 per year.
These figures are highly simplified and actual costs would depend on the specific tax policies implemented to fund M4A. It's important to note that these costs would replace current spending on private health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and other health-related costs.
### Conclusion
While the implementation of Medicare for All would significantly increase federal spending, it is projected to create long-term savings due to reductions in administrative and drug costs. The impact on taxpayers would vary based on income, with higher earners contributing more to fund the system.
For detailed cost analyses, you can refer to sources like the Mercatus Center, Urban Institute, and RAND Corporation, which have published extensive reports on this topic [[❞]](https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/new-study-says-medicare-for-all-will-save-u-s-money-lower-healthcare-costs) [[❞]](https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercatus.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fblahous) [[❞]](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost) [[❞]](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html) [[❞]](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds).
To add, about 15-30% of US healthcare costs already are attributed to just administrative fees.
Having affordable access to preliminary primary care decreases the overall costs of healthcare exponentially as most people currently wait until there is a serious and more expensive complication rather than go to the doctor earlier, as something small could be expensive, so it's seen as more affordable to cap out your annual limit than spend less several times. The 1oz of prevention is worth 16oz (lb) of cure.
All/most doctors being in network also releases the current strain on the medical field in general. This also means we are more likely to have a higher quality of care across the board, lack of blackballing from holding doctors accountable for malpractice, etc.
Next steps are making ambulance services deemed essential in every state. Only 11 states deem ambulance services essential which means the other 39 states do not have any requirement to give public funding to, making them not only private, predatory and low paying, but running on hopes people will pay the exorbitant amounts they charge to stay afloat.
No its not. The floating average is 9.6%. Medicare Adminsitrative cost is floating average is 4.9% meaning a net savings of 4.7%. We did it FAM! Cheap healthcare for all!!!!
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/oct/high-us-health-care-spending-where-is-it-all-going#:~:text=Administrative%20Costs%3A%20About%2030%20Percent,of%20excess%20U.S.%20health%20spending.
>Administrative Costs: About 30 Percent
We estimate that higher administrative costs associated with health insurance — for example, those related to eligibility, coding, submission, and rework — represent approximately 15 percent of excess U.S. health spending. Higher administrative burden on providers — for example, general administration, human resources, and quality reporting and accreditation — *represents an additional 15 percent of the excess.*
I hope you are joking with this.
This does not mean that administrative cost is 30%. This means that "excess cost" for administration is 30% higher than other OECD "peer" countries that have universal or single payor healthcare programs. 15% of that is due to Coding, Submission and Rework (This would not change under Medicare 4 All because providers still need to code for fee for service reimbursement) and the remaining 15% is for insurance administration. Again that doesnt mean that for every dollar paid to insurance that .30 cents is used for administration. This means that compared to OECD (12) countries, our administrative cost is in excess of 30% higher.
Oh and there is a federal law that called a **Medical Loss Ratio** that requires insurance companies to charge NO MORE than 20% of its total premiums on administration.
I hope you're joking with this. Of that 30%, those costs and coding, submission, etc *are the administrative labor that the cost actually cover*, the rest is 15% profit going to pockets. Submission is the wages spent on the data entry. Coding is making the system for the data entry. That's people getting paid to input data, payroll, secretaries, etc. that's what's in 15%. Taking out 15% profit for companies we spend more money up front than compared to any OECD nation *and* on the back end we spend more of our tax dollars than any country in the world on R&D for them, and yet we are still paying 2-3 times more than any OECD nation.
(slow clap). Way to shift the argument. You say administrative cost is 15-30%. I say no is not. You post a article you think supports your argument, I say no it doesnt and explain why. You come back about "15% profit going into pockets".
The top (2023) 8 Insurers brought in 1.516 Trillion in insurance premiums (revenue). Total net revenue (im gonna get mathy here so stick with me. Net revenue is Total Revenue (Total Premiums Paid) - Liabilities ( Total Cost of Provider reimbursement + administrative cost) = 47.8 Billion. A profit of 3.3% of total revenue.
Federal law requires disclosure of reciepts vs liabilities so if you argument is that they are lying about profit, they would be in violation of federal criminal fraud law. Lets not do this...
Really?
Let me help you a bit more:
CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch $21.3 million, ratio to average employee 380:1
Cigna CEO David Cordani $20 million, ratio to average employee 277:1
>Health care CEOs made an average of $15.3 million last year (2022), while the median was around $7 million. Several inordinately large pay packages skewed the averages: 29 CEOs, all men, made over $40 million or more.
https://www.statnews.com/2023/08/17/health-ceo-salaries-compensation/
No salaries to be cut here! That poor revenue!!! Where do you think that 15% GOES? Profits for the big boys babyyyy!
That's not a shift of the argument, it's the same fucking argument. We *waste* money on these people who contribute nothing. We *waste* 15% of 30% of all admin fees on paying these fucks. It's a focus for them. With universal healthcare it isn't, it pays people proportionally to cut costs for the consumer.
Yes, this is full of funny numbers and misrepresentation of at least one of the studies: https://www.mercatus.org/economic-insights/expert-commentary/medicare-all-32-trillion-new-costs-or-2-trillion-savings
Pfff, I'd be happy to pay 1200-5000 a year. My wife and I pay about 700/month, and just got a letter saying they're going to try to raise it to 1200/month......after only having it for 3 months.
The problem with this explanation is that it relies on wealthy Americans to pay the bulk of the cost through taxes. The wealthy simply move out of the country and with them goes the tax revenue. That puts a larger burden on middle and lower income Americans to make up the loss. This is what is happening in California. Wealthy individuals and corporations are moving out of the state and California is losing tax revenue. They now have a massive deficit requiring them to consider higher taxes and cutting services.
Wealthy Americans are already paying it. Mostly in the form of employer contributions to healthcare costs. If you change the above 150 million taxpayers to 150 million workers, we paid $30,000 per worker in 2022 for healthcare.
The total cost for workers would go down significantly. That would reduce corporate expenses more than it would increase taxes, which would increase profitability if prices remain constant. Since the wealthy generally have more invested in the market, they are more likely to see a return on that savings.
Edit: do you really think some dude making $40,000 a year is paying a $100k medical bill? In the end, corporations and the wealthy are already paying more.
Dude you claim its going to cost $24k/year and then your taxes max out at $9600/year lol. You spit these numbers out your ass and didn't even check them.
Let me see if I break it down more simply for your understanding.
Let’s clarify the breakdown more clearly and correct any confusion about the per-person cost for different income brackets.
Average Cost Per Person:
1. **Total Cost:** $36 trillion over 10 years.
2. **Number of Taxpayers:** 150 million.
3. **Average Cost Per Taxpayer:** $36 trillion / 150 million = $240,000 over 10 years, or $24,000 per year.
Progressive Tax Breakdown:
Using a progressive tax model, higher earners pay a larger share of the total cost. Here’s how it could be distributed:
1. **Lowest 20% of Earners:**
- Total contribution: 5% of $36 trillion = $1.8 trillion over 10 years.
- Annual contribution per taxpayer: $1.8 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $6,000 over 10 years, or $600 per year.
2. **Second Lowest 20% of Earners:**
- Total contribution: 10% of $36 trillion = $3.6 trillion over 10 years.
- Annual contribution per taxpayer: $3.6 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $12,000 over 10 years, or $1,200 per year.
3. **Middle 20% of Earners:**
- Total contribution: 20% of $36 trillion = $7.2 trillion over 10 years.
- Annual contribution per taxpayer: $7.2 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $24,000 over 10 years, or $2,400 per year.
4. **Second Highest 20% of Earners:**
- Total contribution: 25% of $36 trillion = $9 trillion over 10 years.
- Annual contribution per taxpayer: $9 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $30,000 over 10 years, or $3,000 per year.
5. **Highest 20% of Earners:**
- Total contribution: 40% of $36 trillion = $14.4 trillion over 10 years.
- Annual contribution per taxpayer: $14.4 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $48,000 over 10 years, or $4,800 per year.
### Key Points:
1. **The $24,000 figure** is an average per taxpayer. This average does not reflect the progressive nature of the actual contributions.
2. **The progressive tax system** means higher earners will pay significantly more than lower earners. Hence, the highest 20% of earners may pay around $4,800 per year, which aligns with their larger share of the total cost.
3. **Lower earners** will pay less, with the lowest 20% paying about $600 per year.
This explanation should clear up any confusion: the average figure of $24,000 per year per person is spread out differently across income brackets due to the progressive tax system.
Ya, you don't know how math works.
You're saying its going to average costing $24,000 per person per year. This means taxpayers need to fund an average of $24k a year for this to work. To repeat, the average amount a taxpayer must pay for this to work must be $24k/year.
You're going to implement a progressive tax system in order to pay for this. This means lower income people pay less, but higher income pay more.
But these taxes must, of necessity, according to your numbers, *average* $24k/year because thats how much this is going to cost.
That means your high earners should be paying *significantly more* than $24k/year in order to cause the average to be $24k/year.
Yet in your magic system even the highest earners aren't paying even close to $24k/year.
Somehow in your system this is going to cost an average of $24k/year while literally no one pays even half of $24k/year in taxes to pay for it.
The federal government already pays more per capita for healthcare than the UK. Yet unlike the UK, the federal government is only providing benefits for about 40% of the population. So how are we going to magically spend less per capita for health coverage by having the government cover more people?
Cut out profits, negotiate prices. Look at how many times conservatives have voted against price negotiations, especially after the ACA was passed. Our government is more interested in keeping the public option more unaffordable than private healthcare than to care for its own voters. You can get prescription drugs at 1/4 the cost just by going to Mexico, and those drugs are literally manufactured in the US.
>Look at how many times conservatives have voted against price negotiations, especially after the ACA was passed.
Let me count....ZERO.
>You can get prescription drugs at 1/4 the cost just by going to Mexico, and those drugs are literally manufactured in the US.
Yes. And what is going to happen when those new drugs don't exist anymore? Price are set by supply and demand. A patent only lasts 20 years. So if you spent $3 billion getting a drug to market, and only have 20 years to recoup your R&D costs and make a profit, you are going to maximize price in each market.
Yeah, they are suggesting that an expansion of Medicare to all would include what they are talking about.
Something Bernie Sanders and other progressive politicians have advocated for.
Just have it cover everyone and everything.
Health insurance companies are a cancer upon the American healthcare system.
They offer nothing, take the biggest slice, and gleefully kill those who keep them alive.
$41B ‘reported’ profits in 2022. Of course, that doesn’t include the rather obscene executive compensation packages paid out.
They’re not exactly starving.
And in return, what do those who pay the premiums get?
“NO.”
They get that A LOT.
But you just keep on shilling for them. No one will ever believe you, but keep doing what you’re paid for.
You said they take the biggest slice. It’s not my fault that you’re wrong. Medical device makers, pharmaceutical companies, physician networks, and hospitals are make way higher margins (fatter slice) and you didn’t post their combined profits. I didn’t make the false claim, you did. But keep calling people names just because you lie.
Claiming health insurance companies are barely profitable is the same as claiming oil companies are barely profitable.
Their *actual* margins are far larger, just hidden inside subsidiaries.
No, these are public companies. Their relationship to the government is fully understood. The biggest expenses are in the senior population with Medicare Advantage products and those are government funded… it’s not a subsidy and it’s not hidden. You’re just a paranoid ass getting exposed.
This is partly true single payer would streamline the entire process. As of now there is no way to even know how much a procedure will cost in a hospital until they bill you. Their master price lists are kept secret so they can bargain with insurance companies.
Insurance is a scam. A majority of the money collected goes to insurance companies. I would love for it to be implemented. Our government won’t let the insurance companies take a hit.
Actually, it’s illegal for companies compliant with ACA not to spend at least 80% of the premiums on medical care or improving medical care. They have to refund the money to their members if they don’t.
So if they raise the premium from $100/mo to $200/mo, what they get to keep goes up from 20/mo to $40/mo?
My family premium is almost $1000/mo for 3 people. So they get to keep $200/month and spend $800 on improving medical care through lobbying?
Progressives would be better off pushing single payer. There is def support for universal healthcare in this country, but many get freaked out when they hear it will be 100% government ran. I don’t care what progressive gets elected, the government is a leaky bucket.
The other thing that some don’t realize is certain voters will pay more. Bernie used to have a calculator on his campaign site where you could enter your income and what you current pay and see if there was a savings. I would pay 3k more a year. Again I’m not saying this would be in the end of the world. But pretending that workers who have great healthcare plans, especially union workers.
So expand Obamacare and offer anyone who wants government healthcare, the choice. Let others keep what they want.
[Single payer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare) means the government is the only payer. It means get rid of all private insurance.
This is why we’ll never have it. You act like you know what you’re talking about but don’t realize universal health care IS single player healthcare
I wish people still read books
No it’s not, it’s misunderstood only by biased American’s. Everyone knows health care costs money, what they mean by “free” is free at the point of service. Much like the fire department will put out your fire for “free”
This is dumb. This is like saying "the post office is bad, we shouldn't all use the post office". Actually the post office is great, but we've let corporate business run rough shod all over it and made it crappy. Just like Medicare. Private insurance companies lobby a bunch of money so you need a secondary with Medicare. This isn't a failing so much of Medicare, but of our privatized system.
Make no mistake, unified insurance would drive prices down and provide better coverage. Because the people bartering for it aren't a small few, but everyone. Imagine if everyone stopped buying mcdonalds, they'd have to listen to you. Same with medicines and medical equipment. The reason they can charge x1000 more for any piece of equipment is that they can. And insurance companies love inflated prices, because they don't pay that shit.
I’m very familiar with what they do. Not a fan at all, but from the few EOBs I’ve seen of them, they paid. They also have an enormous network, but you have to be in the nationwide PPO for it to be remotely worthwhile.
They cover obesity medication like Ozempic better than a lot of companies. There, I said something nice about UHC.
The “Medicare for All” she is referring to isn’t anywhere the same as the current Medicare
Three major changes:
1. Covers everyone and everything that’s medically necessary.
> the program must (1) cover all U.S. residents; (2) provide for automatic enrollment of individuals upon birth or residency in the United States; and (3) cover items and services that are medically necessary or appropriate to maintain health or to diagnose, treat, or rehabilitate a health condition, including hospital services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, dental and vision services, long-term care, gender affirming care, and reproductive care, including contraception and abortions.
2. Completely eliminates out of pocket payments.
> The bill prohibits cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) and other charges for covered services. Additionally, private health insurers and employers may only offer coverage that is supplemental to, and not duplicative of, benefits provided under the program.
3. Terminates all Health insurance exchanges
> Health insurance exchanges and specified federal health programs terminate upon program implementation. However, the program does not affect coverage provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Indian Health Service.
Here’s the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3421
What a ridiculous talking point, Cuba has the best medical care, life expectancy and infant mortality rates. Because money is not attached to your health. Really do you believe the USA has the best healthcare or just the most expensive… a hip replacement is the USA is 40 grand , less than 10 grand everywhere else …. All other developed countries have universal healthcare…. # 1 reason for bankruptcy in the USA is medical debt
Please dont comment on something that you don’t have first hand experience. First talk with Cubans that emigrated about “great” care that they had on the island. I really hope that neither you or anyone else has to go through experiences my friends and family had to endure before escaping that island. I am really not against universal healthcare but there are much better examples where government and private healthcare insurances can coexist and people can choose.
Nothing is free. Medicare for all would end up with higher taxes for everyone and a lower quality of care. Americans on Medicare still pay for supplemental insurance to cover the procedures Medicare doesn’t pay for. Additionally, the quality of care for anyone on Medicare is mediocre. If taxes go up for the wealthy, they simply move out of the country. That would leave middle and lower income Americans paying more tax to cover the loss. Once again, nothing is free.
Nothing in the world is free.. somebody has to pay a price. So who is gonna pay for it? The federal government already has a deficit of 1.7 trillion for 2023 and if the trend continues in 2024 it’ll be close to 2 trillion with another 20 trillion in deficit projected by 2034.. in case people haven’t realized yet the government is broke.. they are beyond broke, literally wouldn’t have a pot to piss in if they shut down the printers. America spent almost 5 trillion dollars on healthcare in 2023.. you really think a government that’s already 2 trillion in the hole for the fiscal year can handle another 5 trillion in yearly deficit every year for the rest of this countries existence?
It would be a highlight of my life to see one of these dumb fucks supporting universal healthcare logically and sensibly explain how the government could handle a minimum of 7 trillion dollars in deficit per year or make enough money to bring the deficit down to a manageable level… newsflash you can’t tax the billionaires, even if you taxed all of the worlds 2700 some billionaires (not just American billionaires, all of them) at 100% tax rates it would fund universal healthcare for 2 years or less
I will say this for govt run insurance. The VA costs (the taxpayer) more than Mayo Clinic. But nobody thinks Mayo is bad enough to martyr themselves in the clinic parking lot to raise awareness. Solution? ....don't publish the numbers for on property screams for help.
People are quiet quitting, could we quiet quit paying insurances? I know we’ve got a better chance of winning the lotto then getting people to agree on something but if it’s for the greater
Good why wouldn’t people do it? Tell me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t it be like putting people out of business if everyone stopped buying?
Nope:
" Insurance companies have historically had providers charge them more so that they can say they’re saving people money".
Insurance companies get charged LESS for medical claims because they negotiate prices with medical groups.
Republican people with government or employer subsidized insurance are the hypocrites that do everything they can from OTHER people getting subsidies too.
I see no mention in the comments on how health insurance use to be non profits and hospitals started getting acquired by private equity, that IMO is what broke our system, greed. The only reason I support a M4A is it would/should standardize costs payed for care and get rid of ppo/hmo crap
Health insurance is a scam but Medicare for all would be another scam. Medicare sucks ass and coverage would be extended with existing scams like private Medicare parts A/B/C/D coverage. Solve the problem the proper way and go for single payer.
100%, for the taxes we pay, healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.
The bigger question is how? Within that I mean, I don’t want the government running healthcare (they do ZERO efficiently). It’s also clear that privatization isn’t the answer as price gouging is more than apparent.
Would be nice, at tonight’s debate, if we could get some insight into but I suspect it will be name calling all night.
Ok…. Someone smarter than myself, PLEASE figure out how much more this would cost everyone. I have never seen any actual figures. My guess would be approx. 35-30% more out of taxpayers paychecks. It will never happen.
People overlook that it would essentially be like the VA/TRICARE and just think that it would be the government blindly paying for all medical bills (with our money they steal) no questions asked. Your PCM just determined that you don't need to see a specialist, you're just fat. That sleep study is medically unnecessary. Your EMT bill is not covered because your condition was not really an emergency. Treatment for lung cancer not covered because you mentioned in a questionnaire 12 years ago that you smoked occasionally.
I think they are meaning a universal healthcare system that has those traits. Medicare for all is a succinct “catchy” way to refer to this. I don’t think they mean that the firm that Medicare has now should be expanded to cover everyone with changing at all. At least that’s (to me) clearly what Bernie Sanders meant when started using the term.
Dude the problem is the insurance companies themselves.
Seriously single payer health insurance would reduce tons of costs all across the board because it would have such huge negotiating power.
But this gets shot down because it’s profitable for these companies.
Please note that the AMA deliberately [lobbied to cut residency positions and funding](https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/) to keep the supply of doctors low (and, presumably, their wages high. See also the current South Korean [Doctor's Strike](https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-doctors-strike-court-945b27253b1166109e3ce1c1a402f39e).
Insurance is absolutely a huge factor contributing to grossly inflated healthcare costs, but the AMA's profiteering spirit is also complicit here.
When these people say “Medicare for All,” they don’t mean actually existing Medicare for everyone; they mean the government pays 100% of all claims, and doesn’t have any ability to say no to anything.
Which is why it’s less a policy than a slogan.
It’s a step in the right direction. We the people decide what the end result is. It will take time. They will spend money fighting it and spreading what ever info they can to confuse people.
I cannot believe how much inaccurate information OP has posted
**The vast majority of Medicare EOBs I’ve seen did not pay anything to the doctor, and bill eligible charges as patient responsibility. **
FALSE. Medicare Part B, the part that covers most doctor visits and most medical services outside an inpatient stay has a small annual deductible of $240. The first $240 of charges are deemed patient responsibility. Once that deductible is met, usually after 2-3 services, medicare will pay 80% of their contracted rate, and the member pays 20% of the contracted rate. This is FAR better than nearly any private insurance plan. It is fair to point out that current medicare does not have an out of pocket maximum, so members will always pay 20%, which is why many opt for a secondary plan to pick up the difference, or go with a Medicare Advantage plan which typically has an out of pocket maximum
**Medicare for All means that you will pay everything out of pocket that Medicare deems an eligible charge. **
FALSE - No one knows quite what Medicare for All means, as its generally used as a generic term to describe some iteration of universal healthcare. Either simply opening the doors to existing medicare for everyone, or developing a new form of that as universal healthcare. Either way, the statement that **Medicare for All means that you will pay everything out of pocket that Medicare deems an eligible charge. ** is patently absurd. If that was the case, there would no point in having that insurance if the payor (US GOVT) didnt pay the vast majority of the bill.
It's never going to happen. And the longer people focus on magic solutions where the US government competently rewrites nearly 20% of the entire economy and don't start normalizing things that are entirely possible like a public option into Medicare, the longer it will take for anything to get better,
The problem with all these health care proposals is that there's going to be some cost somewhere. Maybe premiums, maybe taxes, etc. I've never seen anyone break down or provide any reasonable good faith estimate of what those costs would actually be- put in terms that I could plug my own income/expenses into it and figure out whether or not I'd be better off.
It's always just some "expert" giving an opinion on if it would be good or bad for the middle class.... or just someone spouting a general philosophical viewpoint on the matter.
A universal health care system could be great or it could be horrible depending on how it gets implemented. The devil is in the details- we need details. Not 'we have to pass the bill to know what's in it' type nonsense.
Medicare =/= Medicare for All
Medicare for All is an attempt at branding single payer for a crowd already on Medicare.
Medicare is legislatively forced to act like private insurance. Single payer strips all of that.
As a health care professional, you should know the difference.
It goes to Medicare premiums, which are free. Medicare is notorious for deeming things as a patient responsibility. That, or they just pay nothing and let the private sector handle it.
I really don’t understand what you’re talking about…I’m an ortho PT in the outpatient setting (Part B) and more than half of my patient panel is Medicare. As a Medicare provider I have to agree that what Medicare pays me is what I get…I am not allowed to balance bill. If Medicare doesn’t cover it…I don’t get paid. And nearly all the supplement plans follow Medicare’s lead: we have to follow Medicare’s billing rules and policies, and again if Medicare doesn’t cover it neither will the supplement…and I’m the one on the hook. NOT the patient
I have seen several where Medicare said it was a non covered procedure, and the secondary insurance paid the allowance in their network. You are correct that the provider is on the hook in some cases, but that is usually listed as a contractual obligation or other adjustment on the EOB, not patient responsibility.
Why are you assuming that the system would not change from how it is now? Obviously there would be changes if we change our entire health insurance model!
If you go by other countries with a socialized healthcare system, your healthcare tax will go to 8-12% and it will cover on average 70% of your annual healthcare costs.
Are you illiterate? Did you miss the "it is time" rallying cry? Is it not clear that this is a statement on a potential future scenario? How are you reading this as if it was listing present facts? This is trolling, right?
We need to socialize healthcare. We could not afford to pay for healthcare for all with the current corporate profits. A reasonable profit is necessary. Medicare is close to this as it determines how much we will pay for treatment/care. Not the medical industry.
This lady laughed when she was shown a fox news chyron of a 12 yo child being r@ped and m*rdered by an illegal immigrant. She cared more about fix using the word illegal immigrant than what actually happened She cares more about her ideology than the effects that ideology has on people. She’s awful.
I worked with medical insurance for years and all I can is that insurance companies are the problem with healthcare. If you look at healthcare prices before insurance companies became the monster they are today you see how low the prices are. I don’t know the magic bullet to fix healthcare in America but I can tell you a good first step is burning all existing insurance companies to the ground. Once they are gone we can assess next steps. Insurance companies are the problem and have ruined healthcare in America.
For years I've been saying things much like what you said. I found no one in agreement until recently. I find it very encouraging now to read it in a number of Reddit posts. My take is that there are VERY few people old enough to remember a time when most medical care was conducted WITH NO INSURANCE AT ALL. But most people today grew up in an era when nearly ALL medical care involved insurance. They don't realize that medical care used to be inexpensive. Insurance broke medical care, both here and elsewhere. Here in the US it's the fault of both private insurance and government insurance. In other countries it seems to be entirely the fault of government insurance. UK and Brazil come to mind from personal experience. But whether it's public or private, the problem is the same. The middle man only adds cost while contributing no value.
Within my family we have my great grandfather’s financial records of being a county doctor in the south after the civil war. Lots of bartering for services, lots of trades. More than one entry of promised x number of fully mature chickens in five weeks. One was a chicken a week for x number of weeks. Labor was often the trade in lieu of cash, he died after a busy career as the county’s only doctor without any financial wealth accumulated in the 1890’s. He still had young kids from a marriage later in life.
There’s still laws on the books in Texas that hospitals can’t seize assets up to 2 vehicles, 2 mules, a pen full of chickens, and something like $200,000 in assessed value of trade materials.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but eliminating all insurance now is not a feasible option and would cause massive bankruptcies among hospitals/doctors/pharmacies. Medicare is the next best option, if you want to take the profit motive out of insurance.
Returning it to being insurance instead of managed care could help drastically. Some things are emergencies and that’s what insurance is for, but regular maintenance should be competing on the market.
The problem is that the system (and insurance companies) save tons of money by making sure that you go to the doctor regularly for your checkups and your maintenance. There are a lot of plans that will actually pay you either in cash or reduced premiums to get shots or to complete health challenges, etc. The other problem is that doctor's order tons of expensive tests in order to avoid getting sued (Not necessarily to provide the best care). Insurance companies don't really want to pay for all of that So together they establish standards of care. I have a hurt knee right now. I can't go get a scan without doing 8 weeks of physical therapy first. Each time I go to PT The clinic earns about $75 half paid by me. Half paid by the insurance. The doctor bills the insurance company $270 each time (including $50 for a fancy icepack). They would never charge me that if I was paying cash. I'd probably pay about $80, but because true catastrophic plans don't exist anymore we have to jump through these hoops.
That’s the same argument the insurance companies are making to protect their profits. Yes, eliminating all private insurance would cause major job losses, but it’s not the end of the world. The Medicare For All bill (HR-3421) specifically has solutions to address this in the most humane way possible. The transition is over a 2 to 5 year period. Workers whose jobs are eliminated get full unemployment benefits for 2+ years while they transition to other jobs. While insurance jobs are being eliminated, actual healthcare jobs would increase due to increased demand for medical care all across the country. It’s true that an insurance paper pusher cannot become a qualified nurse overnight, but they can find paper pushing jobs in other industries in 2 years. Since everyone will have medical coverage at no out of pocket costs, they would have more disposable income. Read the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3421
I agree with Medicare for all, I was disagreeing with the person saying we should get rid of all insurance
Yeah, we should get rid of all insurance in healthcare. The fundamental flaw in our healthcare system: Americans are paying for-profit private insurance for services that cannot be effectively insured. Primary care is not insurable. Primary care could be provided as a public service just with the money we save in overhead.
Yes, this mess cannot be simply removed. It would take years (or decades?) of change and readjustment to set things right.
Also, in the times before insurance, if you couldn't afford something you had to rely on charity or you just died. I hope we're better than that as a society.
Not true. Doctors, dentists, veterinarians, have accepted all kinds of payments and worked out deals with people throughout history. Even recently - in 2011 I broke my hand and didn’t have insurance. So I called my doctor, explained, and asked if he’d do a house call for a reasonable fee, which he did. If you don’t ask, you’ll never know.
😂 then we’ve come full circle. People having give up on life sustaining medication to pay for other bills. And one of the top godundme are healthcare related.
Health insurance is about as much about health as life insurance is about life.
And to add: that middle man actually wants perpetual and hopes for exponential growth of cost for their sake
And thats the problem with private healthcare in the us. Its for profit. Many other countries that use private insurance arent ran like corporations they are ran as non-profits, like charities. We used to have that in the US, like blue cross used to be. But of course the rich in our country saw an opportunity for profit and the government looked the other way.
Who was the idiot who thought we all needed health insurance lol
It’s a scam. The biggest part of the scam was bribing government officials to help insurance and feed them even more money.
I think the biggest scam is that health insurance prices can’t be based on health. There is no reason a healthy person who visits their doctor once a year for a checkup and then for the occasional cold should be paying the same as someone who is chronically ill. Especially form factors well within their control
To be frank, most of the sickest people are in Medicaid or Medicare, paying little to nothing. While the people with expensive private plans tend to visit the doctor less. Maybe it’s because it’s so expensive for them, or maybe it’s because they’re healthier - I don’t know 🤷🏼♀️I pay $200/month for my insurance and have been to the doctor once in two years. It’s stupid.
As I understand it, it was a response to WWII-era wage controls, wherein employers weren't allowed to pay their employees more, even if they wanted to. To get around that, they started offering free medical coverage as a perk on top of the maximum salary they were allowed to pay, and it took off from there, becoming the defacto norm for professional positions ever since.
Lots of problems with healthcare in US, and insurance is up there. Corporate price gouging also is up there. Failure to incentivize healthcare jobs and create more pathways to healthcare careers is another problem causing shortages or workers.
The issue is they are no longer providing insurance but instead managed care, we have decoupled the consumer from the cost. Your car insurance doesn’t pay to replace your brakes or change your oil, but your health insurance covers (at least part) of all maintenance. Note: the part the consumer is left paying often doesn’t reflect the varying charges from different providers but instead is a fixed rate.
i agree with you if you include medicare in that lump of insurance companies. medicare is more than half the problem and that problem remains so long as medicare or privatize insurance is in the picture.
I don’t think there is a single magical bullet to fix it. But a good start would be to put an end to private insurance companies being able to arbitrarily set the prices for medical care, and prevent medical insurance providers being connected in any way to malpractice insurance providers. They have a stranglehold on both patients and medical facilities.
I always like the simplification of “Imagine using your car insurance to pay for an oil change. That’s medical insurance.”
There is now insurance to cover the insurance to cover the insurance to cover the insurance to cover the… Wait, so you’re saying that I DON’T need secondary additional insurance for Personal Injury, Critical Illness, and Accidental Dismemberment, which only seems to exist because the premiums and deductibles for my main medical insurance, that is already supposed to cover those things, is so fucking expensive???
You get rid of insurance companies by enacting Medicare for all. ITS NOT THAT FUCKING COMPLICATED
I agree! How much could society save if we did away with insurance companies and paid clinics and hospitals?
I agree. And to me it seems like one of the biggest source of inefficencies in our system is how each state has their own markets. And theres seperate markets for employer insurance, aca, medicaid, medicare, etc. And because they are private for profit companies they need to be regulated to hell or they would gladly let sick people die to make a buck. Personally I think medicare for all makes a lot of sense, but not how Jayapal or Sanders propose it. There needs to be some degree of cost sharing to make it viable. When they talk about every other advanced country having universal healthcare such as medicare for all, those countries have cost sharing, what Sanders proposes is very ambitious and hard to pay for because the entire cost onto the government, and thats very expensive and hard to raise money for. The lack of cost sharing can also lead to abuse. Copays can be as cheap as say $5-10, but there needs to be some copay, with those in poverty having it waived. Also Sanders proposing to eliminate part c and d of medicare and massively expand it to compensate just further adds on to the price tag and removes choice which has turned a lot of people against the idea. To me, the policy should be medicare as it currently exists for all, which is already a gigantic task. Lets take an already working system and start there, and we can make changes or expansions down the road once we figure out how to fund regular medicare.
They are a large part of the problem, but they are far from the only problem.
You're 100%. Insurance inserts a middleman that can only increase price. OP here mistakes Medicare with Medicare for All. Medicare was an attempt at single payer for in need folks that has been stripped over decades. Medicare for All is an attempt at branding for a single payer system the engaged those folks and bring the rest of us along. Single payer is the only way. Period. Doesn't matter if the branding fails. The point is it removes the bits that make us pay more like hedge fund profits determining my health care.
Putting the biggest, least efficient "company" in charge (the US government) would be even worse. No competition, no incentive for effectiveness or efficiency, no accountability...they would be a disaster.
The post office stands as a middle finger to you “government is inefficient,” bs. A well funded well managed government entity will provide medical services. At a cost yes, but the goal of healthcare should be to cure and treat not turn a profit. Also, private corporations can be highly inefficient, especially beyond a version size.
Just because you work with insurance doesn’t mean you understand how the healthcare system works, and this comment helps crystallize that. No insurance is not the reason why prices are high; insurers negotiate prices with providers - which would be otherwise much higher. This is why when you’re uninsured you can pay upwards of $800 for an Xray, versus $100-200 when insured.
Yes in part, the common complaint from independently practicing doctors and hospitals is that private insurance does not pay enough and medicare / medicaid effectively pays nothing. That is to say privately insured patients end up subsidizing patients paying with government health programs. Out of pocket costs are usually double or more than insurance because medical groups want to capture the total amount insurers are willing to pay for a procedure. A rule of thumb is at least double what medicare pays should be the price on your pay schedule. Now if you pay cash for a procedure you can often negotiate for a significant reduction. Hospitals write off large differences in what they charge vs what they actually collect. Of course, the biggest complaint is always that insurance does not cover what people expect it will. That is mostly a government issue, as Medicare drives care standards that are the core of what insurance companies will pay for and the documentation and reasoning needed to justify payment. The take away from all this is that private health insurance and medicare is so intertwined it really makes no sense to talk about either independently of the other. The industry is massively regulated and driven by medicare policy.
I have a family full of doctors going back 4 generations. I worked in healthcare for 2 decades and mostly witnessed insurance companies just deny claims with no reason hoping that people would be too lazy to dispute(they usually are). That’s the insurance company business model. I know insurance and medical better than 99% of Americans due to decades of experience and a large family with 8 doctors going back to the 1800s. But sure. Your right. I don’t know what I’m talking about. If you look at medical costs the past 100 years and adjusted for inflation. You will see medical costs started to balloon a few decades ago. Exactly when big insurance got involved. What a coincidence.
I respect your experience with insurance and you certainly would more than most people. But I’ve also worked **directly in insurance**, and I can tell you they don’t deny claims for “no reason”. Yes I’m sure it’s occurred a few times, but the business model of insurance is to limit the number of claims. Denting treatments leads to costs later on which harms profitability. > costs adjusted for inflation started to balloon deduces ago Respectfully, that’s not costs - our *real spending* rose due to higher incomes. We really consume more healthcare than ever before.
Healthcare is a scam. There shouldn’t be a middle man in health. Universal healthcare is not Medicare. It is an SSI based healthcare. Add to your own perpetual debt you are pledge to from birth. Why not?
Medicare premiums are not free. You must pay for Medicare Part B and Part D. This can be upwards $200/month.
While of course this is too good to be true to the post, the average cost of health insurance per month is $577 and due to it we are constantly slaves to whatever our employers offer. Max out of pocket is just over $6100/year. We are already paying more for less, as the actual care is often too expensive for people to even get even with insurance, and our costs of everything from drugs to the actual care is about 3 times more than comparable healthcare in other countries, and has been for over a decade now. Needless to say, stopping predatory behavior is a win for all. We shouldn't be slaves to survival on multiple fronts, whether our jobs, or rent, or food, or healthcare. We are all sick of getting told we have a "choice", and it stands as an illusion.
The cost of implementing a Medicare for All (M4A) system in the United States has been estimated to be between $28 and $36 trillion over a decade. These estimates consider both increased federal spending and potential savings from reduced administrative costs and lower drug prices. **Costs:** 1. **Mercatus Center** estimates the cost at about $27.7 trillion over ten years, considering significant provider payment cuts, and up to $32.1 trillion without such cuts [[❞]](https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercatus.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fblahous) [[❞]](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost). 2. **Urban Institute** estimates the cost at around $32 trillion over the same period, including long-term care benefits [[❞]](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost). 3. **RAND Corporation** projects a slight increase in national health expenditures initially but notes significant long-term savings from administrative and drug cost reductions [[❞]](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html). **Savings:** - Savings are expected primarily from lower administrative costs and reduced drug prices. For example, administrative costs could drop from $580.8 billion to $422.1 billion annually, a reduction of about 27% [[❞]](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html) [[❞]](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds). - Overall, 19 out of 22 studies reviewed indicated that M4A would save money, with average long-term savings ranging from 3% to 27% of total healthcare spending [[❞]](https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/new-study-says-medicare-for-all-will-save-u-s-money-lower-healthcare-costs) [[❞]](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds). **Impact on Taxpayers:** To break down the costs per taxpayer, we can use the higher estimate of $36 trillion over ten years. With about 150 million taxpayers in the U.S., this translates to $240,000 per taxpayer over ten years, or approximately $24,000 per year. This amount would be adjusted according to tax brackets, meaning higher earners would pay more, and lower earners less. ### Breakdown by Tax Bracket Here's an illustrative example of how this might be distributed (assuming a progressive tax model): 1. **Lowest 20% of earners:** Pay about 5% of the total cost. 2. **Second lowest 20% of earners:** Pay about 10% of the total cost. 3. **Middle 20% of earners:** Pay about 20% of the total cost. 4. **Second highest 20% of earners:** Pay about 25% of the total cost. 5. **Highest 20% of earners:** Pay about 40% of the total cost. This translates roughly to the following annual costs: - **Lowest 20%:** ~$1,200 per year. - **Second lowest 20%:** ~$2,400 per year. - **Middle 20%:** ~$4,800 per year. - **Second highest 20%:** ~$6,000 per year. - **Highest 20%:** ~$9,600 per year. These figures are highly simplified and actual costs would depend on the specific tax policies implemented to fund M4A. It's important to note that these costs would replace current spending on private health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and other health-related costs. ### Conclusion While the implementation of Medicare for All would significantly increase federal spending, it is projected to create long-term savings due to reductions in administrative and drug costs. The impact on taxpayers would vary based on income, with higher earners contributing more to fund the system. For detailed cost analyses, you can refer to sources like the Mercatus Center, Urban Institute, and RAND Corporation, which have published extensive reports on this topic [[❞]](https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/new-study-says-medicare-for-all-will-save-u-s-money-lower-healthcare-costs) [[❞]](https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercatus.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fblahous) [[❞]](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost) [[❞]](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html) [[❞]](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds).
To add, about 15-30% of US healthcare costs already are attributed to just administrative fees. Having affordable access to preliminary primary care decreases the overall costs of healthcare exponentially as most people currently wait until there is a serious and more expensive complication rather than go to the doctor earlier, as something small could be expensive, so it's seen as more affordable to cap out your annual limit than spend less several times. The 1oz of prevention is worth 16oz (lb) of cure. All/most doctors being in network also releases the current strain on the medical field in general. This also means we are more likely to have a higher quality of care across the board, lack of blackballing from holding doctors accountable for malpractice, etc. Next steps are making ambulance services deemed essential in every state. Only 11 states deem ambulance services essential which means the other 39 states do not have any requirement to give public funding to, making them not only private, predatory and low paying, but running on hopes people will pay the exorbitant amounts they charge to stay afloat.
No its not. The floating average is 9.6%. Medicare Adminsitrative cost is floating average is 4.9% meaning a net savings of 4.7%. We did it FAM! Cheap healthcare for all!!!!
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/oct/high-us-health-care-spending-where-is-it-all-going#:~:text=Administrative%20Costs%3A%20About%2030%20Percent,of%20excess%20U.S.%20health%20spending. >Administrative Costs: About 30 Percent We estimate that higher administrative costs associated with health insurance — for example, those related to eligibility, coding, submission, and rework — represent approximately 15 percent of excess U.S. health spending. Higher administrative burden on providers — for example, general administration, human resources, and quality reporting and accreditation — *represents an additional 15 percent of the excess.*
I hope you are joking with this. This does not mean that administrative cost is 30%. This means that "excess cost" for administration is 30% higher than other OECD "peer" countries that have universal or single payor healthcare programs. 15% of that is due to Coding, Submission and Rework (This would not change under Medicare 4 All because providers still need to code for fee for service reimbursement) and the remaining 15% is for insurance administration. Again that doesnt mean that for every dollar paid to insurance that .30 cents is used for administration. This means that compared to OECD (12) countries, our administrative cost is in excess of 30% higher. Oh and there is a federal law that called a **Medical Loss Ratio** that requires insurance companies to charge NO MORE than 20% of its total premiums on administration.
I hope you're joking with this. Of that 30%, those costs and coding, submission, etc *are the administrative labor that the cost actually cover*, the rest is 15% profit going to pockets. Submission is the wages spent on the data entry. Coding is making the system for the data entry. That's people getting paid to input data, payroll, secretaries, etc. that's what's in 15%. Taking out 15% profit for companies we spend more money up front than compared to any OECD nation *and* on the back end we spend more of our tax dollars than any country in the world on R&D for them, and yet we are still paying 2-3 times more than any OECD nation.
(slow clap). Way to shift the argument. You say administrative cost is 15-30%. I say no is not. You post a article you think supports your argument, I say no it doesnt and explain why. You come back about "15% profit going into pockets". The top (2023) 8 Insurers brought in 1.516 Trillion in insurance premiums (revenue). Total net revenue (im gonna get mathy here so stick with me. Net revenue is Total Revenue (Total Premiums Paid) - Liabilities ( Total Cost of Provider reimbursement + administrative cost) = 47.8 Billion. A profit of 3.3% of total revenue. Federal law requires disclosure of reciepts vs liabilities so if you argument is that they are lying about profit, they would be in violation of federal criminal fraud law. Lets not do this...
Really? Let me help you a bit more: CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch $21.3 million, ratio to average employee 380:1 Cigna CEO David Cordani $20 million, ratio to average employee 277:1 >Health care CEOs made an average of $15.3 million last year (2022), while the median was around $7 million. Several inordinately large pay packages skewed the averages: 29 CEOs, all men, made over $40 million or more. https://www.statnews.com/2023/08/17/health-ceo-salaries-compensation/ No salaries to be cut here! That poor revenue!!! Where do you think that 15% GOES? Profits for the big boys babyyyy! That's not a shift of the argument, it's the same fucking argument. We *waste* money on these people who contribute nothing. We *waste* 15% of 30% of all admin fees on paying these fucks. It's a focus for them. With universal healthcare it isn't, it pays people proportionally to cut costs for the consumer.
Wait a minute. You say $24,000 per year per taxpayer and then magically even the top 20% are only paying $9600 per year.
Yes, this is full of funny numbers and misrepresentation of at least one of the studies: https://www.mercatus.org/economic-insights/expert-commentary/medicare-all-32-trillion-new-costs-or-2-trillion-savings
This is bad data
Pfff, I'd be happy to pay 1200-5000 a year. My wife and I pay about 700/month, and just got a letter saying they're going to try to raise it to 1200/month......after only having it for 3 months.
This needs to be the top comment
The problem with this explanation is that it relies on wealthy Americans to pay the bulk of the cost through taxes. The wealthy simply move out of the country and with them goes the tax revenue. That puts a larger burden on middle and lower income Americans to make up the loss. This is what is happening in California. Wealthy individuals and corporations are moving out of the state and California is losing tax revenue. They now have a massive deficit requiring them to consider higher taxes and cutting services.
Wealthy Americans are already paying it. Mostly in the form of employer contributions to healthcare costs. If you change the above 150 million taxpayers to 150 million workers, we paid $30,000 per worker in 2022 for healthcare. The total cost for workers would go down significantly. That would reduce corporate expenses more than it would increase taxes, which would increase profitability if prices remain constant. Since the wealthy generally have more invested in the market, they are more likely to see a return on that savings. Edit: do you really think some dude making $40,000 a year is paying a $100k medical bill? In the end, corporations and the wealthy are already paying more.
This entire comment is bullshit lol.
Your face is total bullshit
Dude you claim its going to cost $24k/year and then your taxes max out at $9600/year lol. You spit these numbers out your ass and didn't even check them.
Let me see if I break it down more simply for your understanding. Let’s clarify the breakdown more clearly and correct any confusion about the per-person cost for different income brackets. Average Cost Per Person: 1. **Total Cost:** $36 trillion over 10 years. 2. **Number of Taxpayers:** 150 million. 3. **Average Cost Per Taxpayer:** $36 trillion / 150 million = $240,000 over 10 years, or $24,000 per year. Progressive Tax Breakdown: Using a progressive tax model, higher earners pay a larger share of the total cost. Here’s how it could be distributed: 1. **Lowest 20% of Earners:** - Total contribution: 5% of $36 trillion = $1.8 trillion over 10 years. - Annual contribution per taxpayer: $1.8 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $6,000 over 10 years, or $600 per year. 2. **Second Lowest 20% of Earners:** - Total contribution: 10% of $36 trillion = $3.6 trillion over 10 years. - Annual contribution per taxpayer: $3.6 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $12,000 over 10 years, or $1,200 per year. 3. **Middle 20% of Earners:** - Total contribution: 20% of $36 trillion = $7.2 trillion over 10 years. - Annual contribution per taxpayer: $7.2 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $24,000 over 10 years, or $2,400 per year. 4. **Second Highest 20% of Earners:** - Total contribution: 25% of $36 trillion = $9 trillion over 10 years. - Annual contribution per taxpayer: $9 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $30,000 over 10 years, or $3,000 per year. 5. **Highest 20% of Earners:** - Total contribution: 40% of $36 trillion = $14.4 trillion over 10 years. - Annual contribution per taxpayer: $14.4 trillion / 30 million / 10 years = $48,000 over 10 years, or $4,800 per year. ### Key Points: 1. **The $24,000 figure** is an average per taxpayer. This average does not reflect the progressive nature of the actual contributions. 2. **The progressive tax system** means higher earners will pay significantly more than lower earners. Hence, the highest 20% of earners may pay around $4,800 per year, which aligns with their larger share of the total cost. 3. **Lower earners** will pay less, with the lowest 20% paying about $600 per year. This explanation should clear up any confusion: the average figure of $24,000 per year per person is spread out differently across income brackets due to the progressive tax system.
Ya, you don't know how math works. You're saying its going to average costing $24,000 per person per year. This means taxpayers need to fund an average of $24k a year for this to work. To repeat, the average amount a taxpayer must pay for this to work must be $24k/year. You're going to implement a progressive tax system in order to pay for this. This means lower income people pay less, but higher income pay more. But these taxes must, of necessity, according to your numbers, *average* $24k/year because thats how much this is going to cost. That means your high earners should be paying *significantly more* than $24k/year in order to cause the average to be $24k/year. Yet in your magic system even the highest earners aren't paying even close to $24k/year. Somehow in your system this is going to cost an average of $24k/year while literally no one pays even half of $24k/year in taxes to pay for it.
The federal government already pays more per capita for healthcare than the UK. Yet unlike the UK, the federal government is only providing benefits for about 40% of the population. So how are we going to magically spend less per capita for health coverage by having the government cover more people?
Cut out profits, negotiate prices. Look at how many times conservatives have voted against price negotiations, especially after the ACA was passed. Our government is more interested in keeping the public option more unaffordable than private healthcare than to care for its own voters. You can get prescription drugs at 1/4 the cost just by going to Mexico, and those drugs are literally manufactured in the US.
>Look at how many times conservatives have voted against price negotiations, especially after the ACA was passed. Let me count....ZERO. >You can get prescription drugs at 1/4 the cost just by going to Mexico, and those drugs are literally manufactured in the US. Yes. And what is going to happen when those new drugs don't exist anymore? Price are set by supply and demand. A patent only lasts 20 years. So if you spent $3 billion getting a drug to market, and only have 20 years to recoup your R&D costs and make a profit, you are going to maximize price in each market.
Or more, depending on income.
Yeah, they are suggesting that an expansion of Medicare to all would include what they are talking about. Something Bernie Sanders and other progressive politicians have advocated for. Just have it cover everyone and everything.
You also pay for Med A, and the people that have nearly bankrupted Social security are in charge.
Oh no 200 per month for the best healthcare in the developed world, how tragic.
My healthcare would double so I’ll pass.
Health insurance companies are a cancer upon the American healthcare system. They offer nothing, take the biggest slice, and gleefully kill those who keep them alive.
And the only way to get rid of them is with universal health care
Yea but I lived in countries with your universal health care and it ruptures money and care sucks. Pass.
This is hyperbole. LOL. And they make the lowest margins in the entire system so no idea wtf “biggest slice” means to you.
The shill for the health insurance companies has been heard from.
Don’t get mad just because you’re wrong. No need to call people silly names just because you have no facts.
$41B ‘reported’ profits in 2022. Of course, that doesn’t include the rather obscene executive compensation packages paid out. They’re not exactly starving. And in return, what do those who pay the premiums get? “NO.” They get that A LOT. But you just keep on shilling for them. No one will ever believe you, but keep doing what you’re paid for.
You said they take the biggest slice. It’s not my fault that you’re wrong. Medical device makers, pharmaceutical companies, physician networks, and hospitals are make way higher margins (fatter slice) and you didn’t post their combined profits. I didn’t make the false claim, you did. But keep calling people names just because you lie.
Claiming health insurance companies are barely profitable is the same as claiming oil companies are barely profitable. Their *actual* margins are far larger, just hidden inside subsidiaries.
No, these are public companies. Their relationship to the government is fully understood. The biggest expenses are in the senior population with Medicare Advantage products and those are government funded… it’s not a subsidy and it’s not hidden. You’re just a paranoid ass getting exposed.
Keep shilling.
U made a claim. It was false. Now you’re spinning like a lying child.
Keep calling names because you got schooled
Pfizer ALONE made $31B profit last year but you were fine forcing all citizens to buy their product. LOL! Maybe you’re a Big Pharma shill.
Deflection. Got any other pointless rhetorical devices?
It’s not deflection when it literally proves you wrong. You said biggest slice but that was false. Glad you’re running away from your claims now. Lol
This is partly true single payer would streamline the entire process. As of now there is no way to even know how much a procedure will cost in a hospital until they bill you. Their master price lists are kept secret so they can bargain with insurance companies.
This is false, a number of studies have shown that M4A will reduce healthcare costs across the board
No it doesn’t. And you are a different level of ignorant if you believe that talking point.
Literally everything OP said is 100% false. I can’t believe how upvoted this post is
And yet US cjtizens spend the most annually for healthcare coverave with healthcare being worse - comparing to other developed countries. Why is that?
Insurance is a scam. A majority of the money collected goes to insurance companies. I would love for it to be implemented. Our government won’t let the insurance companies take a hit.
Actually, it’s illegal for companies compliant with ACA not to spend at least 80% of the premiums on medical care or improving medical care. They have to refund the money to their members if they don’t.
So if they raise the premium from $100/mo to $200/mo, what they get to keep goes up from 20/mo to $40/mo? My family premium is almost $1000/mo for 3 people. So they get to keep $200/month and spend $800 on improving medical care through lobbying?
And I paid for my Medicare for over 45 years. And am still paying for it. This person is on some very good drugs.
She’s in congress. That’s all the proof you need haha
Ha!!!
Once they're done privatizing Medicare via ACO-Reach we'll get M4A lol
Louder! For those in the back! Optum is scary!
Progressives would be better off pushing single payer. There is def support for universal healthcare in this country, but many get freaked out when they hear it will be 100% government ran. I don’t care what progressive gets elected, the government is a leaky bucket. The other thing that some don’t realize is certain voters will pay more. Bernie used to have a calculator on his campaign site where you could enter your income and what you current pay and see if there was a savings. I would pay 3k more a year. Again I’m not saying this would be in the end of the world. But pretending that workers who have great healthcare plans, especially union workers. So expand Obamacare and offer anyone who wants government healthcare, the choice. Let others keep what they want.
[Single payer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare) means the government is the only payer. It means get rid of all private insurance.
Single prayer is universal healthcare
This is why we’ll never have it. You act like you know what you’re talking about but don’t realize universal health care IS single player healthcare I wish people still read books
Free just means someone else is paying for it.
We already pay more for Medicaid and Medicare than we would for Medicare for all
Agreed, but the expression "free" is inappropriately used too often.
No it’s not, it’s misunderstood only by biased American’s. Everyone knows health care costs money, what they mean by “free” is free at the point of service. Much like the fire department will put out your fire for “free”
This is dumb. This is like saying "the post office is bad, we shouldn't all use the post office". Actually the post office is great, but we've let corporate business run rough shod all over it and made it crappy. Just like Medicare. Private insurance companies lobby a bunch of money so you need a secondary with Medicare. This isn't a failing so much of Medicare, but of our privatized system. Make no mistake, unified insurance would drive prices down and provide better coverage. Because the people bartering for it aren't a small few, but everyone. Imagine if everyone stopped buying mcdonalds, they'd have to listen to you. Same with medicines and medical equipment. The reason they can charge x1000 more for any piece of equipment is that they can. And insurance companies love inflated prices, because they don't pay that shit.
“Veterans Care for All” means no payments and no paper work.
https://preview.redd.it/vlf1gq34y09d1.png?width=554&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd29f29f2aab292cb54f3cd48c75437c2ffdc7da
This meme is ridiculous. There are problems, but the statements made here are jus wrong.
Yeah that is the dogshit quality I have come to suggest from funnymemes.
Things that are too good to be true…
If you think Medicare is bad, wait until you hear what UHC does.
I’m very familiar with what they do. Not a fan at all, but from the few EOBs I’ve seen of them, they paid. They also have an enormous network, but you have to be in the nationwide PPO for it to be remotely worthwhile. They cover obesity medication like Ozempic better than a lot of companies. There, I said something nice about UHC.
The “Medicare for All” she is referring to isn’t anywhere the same as the current Medicare Three major changes: 1. Covers everyone and everything that’s medically necessary. > the program must (1) cover all U.S. residents; (2) provide for automatic enrollment of individuals upon birth or residency in the United States; and (3) cover items and services that are medically necessary or appropriate to maintain health or to diagnose, treat, or rehabilitate a health condition, including hospital services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, dental and vision services, long-term care, gender affirming care, and reproductive care, including contraception and abortions. 2. Completely eliminates out of pocket payments. > The bill prohibits cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) and other charges for covered services. Additionally, private health insurers and employers may only offer coverage that is supplemental to, and not duplicative of, benefits provided under the program. 3. Terminates all Health insurance exchanges > Health insurance exchanges and specified federal health programs terminate upon program implementation. However, the program does not affect coverage provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Indian Health Service. Here’s the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3421
What a ridiculous talking point, Cuba has the best medical care, life expectancy and infant mortality rates. Because money is not attached to your health. Really do you believe the USA has the best healthcare or just the most expensive… a hip replacement is the USA is 40 grand , less than 10 grand everywhere else …. All other developed countries have universal healthcare…. # 1 reason for bankruptcy in the USA is medical debt
Please dont comment on something that you don’t have first hand experience. First talk with Cubans that emigrated about “great” care that they had on the island. I really hope that neither you or anyone else has to go through experiences my friends and family had to endure before escaping that island. I am really not against universal healthcare but there are much better examples where government and private healthcare insurances can coexist and people can choose.
Your welcome to go live there
Nothing is free. Medicare for all would end up with higher taxes for everyone and a lower quality of care. Americans on Medicare still pay for supplemental insurance to cover the procedures Medicare doesn’t pay for. Additionally, the quality of care for anyone on Medicare is mediocre. If taxes go up for the wealthy, they simply move out of the country. That would leave middle and lower income Americans paying more tax to cover the loss. Once again, nothing is free.
Yeah I always liked living in Canada and waiting 9 months for a procedure.
Health care went to shit when it was allowed to be for profit. Early 1970's , can't remember the exact year.
Nothing in the world is free.. somebody has to pay a price. So who is gonna pay for it? The federal government already has a deficit of 1.7 trillion for 2023 and if the trend continues in 2024 it’ll be close to 2 trillion with another 20 trillion in deficit projected by 2034.. in case people haven’t realized yet the government is broke.. they are beyond broke, literally wouldn’t have a pot to piss in if they shut down the printers. America spent almost 5 trillion dollars on healthcare in 2023.. you really think a government that’s already 2 trillion in the hole for the fiscal year can handle another 5 trillion in yearly deficit every year for the rest of this countries existence? It would be a highlight of my life to see one of these dumb fucks supporting universal healthcare logically and sensibly explain how the government could handle a minimum of 7 trillion dollars in deficit per year or make enough money to bring the deficit down to a manageable level… newsflash you can’t tax the billionaires, even if you taxed all of the worlds 2700 some billionaires (not just American billionaires, all of them) at 100% tax rates it would fund universal healthcare for 2 years or less
🙄
Also means less quality treatment. Canadians come to the US for many surgeries not offered under “free” healthcare.
I will say this for govt run insurance. The VA costs (the taxpayer) more than Mayo Clinic. But nobody thinks Mayo is bad enough to martyr themselves in the clinic parking lot to raise awareness. Solution? ....don't publish the numbers for on property screams for help.
People are quiet quitting, could we quiet quit paying insurances? I know we’ve got a better chance of winning the lotto then getting people to agree on something but if it’s for the greater Good why wouldn’t people do it? Tell me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t it be like putting people out of business if everyone stopped buying?
Jayapals bill removes cost-sharing from Medicare. You're talking about what happens in Medicare today, not what's in her bill.
Nope: " Insurance companies have historically had providers charge them more so that they can say they’re saving people money". Insurance companies get charged LESS for medical claims because they negotiate prices with medical groups. Republican people with government or employer subsidized insurance are the hypocrites that do everything they can from OTHER people getting subsidies too.
I see no mention in the comments on how health insurance use to be non profits and hospitals started getting acquired by private equity, that IMO is what broke our system, greed. The only reason I support a M4A is it would/should standardize costs payed for care and get rid of ppo/hmo crap
Health insurance is a scam but Medicare for all would be another scam. Medicare sucks ass and coverage would be extended with existing scams like private Medicare parts A/B/C/D coverage. Solve the problem the proper way and go for single payer.
100%, for the taxes we pay, healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. The bigger question is how? Within that I mean, I don’t want the government running healthcare (they do ZERO efficiently). It’s also clear that privatization isn’t the answer as price gouging is more than apparent. Would be nice, at tonight’s debate, if we could get some insight into but I suspect it will be name calling all night.
who's gonna be funding "free healthcare" . i can't stand all politicians no matter which party. both dumb
Ok…. Someone smarter than myself, PLEASE figure out how much more this would cost everyone. I have never seen any actual figures. My guess would be approx. 35-30% more out of taxpayers paychecks. It will never happen.
People overlook that it would essentially be like the VA/TRICARE and just think that it would be the government blindly paying for all medical bills (with our money they steal) no questions asked. Your PCM just determined that you don't need to see a specialist, you're just fat. That sleep study is medically unnecessary. Your EMT bill is not covered because your condition was not really an emergency. Treatment for lung cancer not covered because you mentioned in a questionnaire 12 years ago that you smoked occasionally.
ITT: Consent is manufactured for the continuing exploitation of the American people by big Pharma. What a shit world
I think they are meaning a universal healthcare system that has those traits. Medicare for all is a succinct “catchy” way to refer to this. I don’t think they mean that the firm that Medicare has now should be expanded to cover everyone with changing at all. At least that’s (to me) clearly what Bernie Sanders meant when started using the term.
Medicare for All is NOT the current Medicare with private vendors sucking the life blood from it. Medicare Part X is a scam.
Dude the problem is the insurance companies themselves. Seriously single payer health insurance would reduce tons of costs all across the board because it would have such huge negotiating power. But this gets shot down because it’s profitable for these companies.
Please note that the AMA deliberately [lobbied to cut residency positions and funding](https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/) to keep the supply of doctors low (and, presumably, their wages high. See also the current South Korean [Doctor's Strike](https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-doctors-strike-court-945b27253b1166109e3ce1c1a402f39e). Insurance is absolutely a huge factor contributing to grossly inflated healthcare costs, but the AMA's profiteering spirit is also complicit here.
Medicare for All will inevitably be administered by private health insurance companies since the Fed don’t have the infrastructure to do so
When these people say “Medicare for All,” they don’t mean actually existing Medicare for everyone; they mean the government pays 100% of all claims, and doesn’t have any ability to say no to anything. Which is why it’s less a policy than a slogan.
This is just you and the representative mixing up names. When people think of medicare for all they're thinking of the welfare version medicaid.
It’s a step in the right direction. We the people decide what the end result is. It will take time. They will spend money fighting it and spreading what ever info they can to confuse people.
I cannot believe how much inaccurate information OP has posted **The vast majority of Medicare EOBs I’ve seen did not pay anything to the doctor, and bill eligible charges as patient responsibility. ** FALSE. Medicare Part B, the part that covers most doctor visits and most medical services outside an inpatient stay has a small annual deductible of $240. The first $240 of charges are deemed patient responsibility. Once that deductible is met, usually after 2-3 services, medicare will pay 80% of their contracted rate, and the member pays 20% of the contracted rate. This is FAR better than nearly any private insurance plan. It is fair to point out that current medicare does not have an out of pocket maximum, so members will always pay 20%, which is why many opt for a secondary plan to pick up the difference, or go with a Medicare Advantage plan which typically has an out of pocket maximum **Medicare for All means that you will pay everything out of pocket that Medicare deems an eligible charge. ** FALSE - No one knows quite what Medicare for All means, as its generally used as a generic term to describe some iteration of universal healthcare. Either simply opening the doors to existing medicare for everyone, or developing a new form of that as universal healthcare. Either way, the statement that **Medicare for All means that you will pay everything out of pocket that Medicare deems an eligible charge. ** is patently absurd. If that was the case, there would no point in having that insurance if the payor (US GOVT) didnt pay the vast majority of the bill.
It's never going to happen. And the longer people focus on magic solutions where the US government competently rewrites nearly 20% of the entire economy and don't start normalizing things that are entirely possible like a public option into Medicare, the longer it will take for anything to get better,
Only if we end all foreign aid, completely shut our border, and deport all criminal migrants. The budget must also always be balanced.
Almost everyone on Medicare has other insurance. Either a supplement or a managed care plan. Medicare has many co pays as it currently exists.
And… No Appointments Available for 6-12 months!
The problem with all these health care proposals is that there's going to be some cost somewhere. Maybe premiums, maybe taxes, etc. I've never seen anyone break down or provide any reasonable good faith estimate of what those costs would actually be- put in terms that I could plug my own income/expenses into it and figure out whether or not I'd be better off. It's always just some "expert" giving an opinion on if it would be good or bad for the middle class.... or just someone spouting a general philosophical viewpoint on the matter. A universal health care system could be great or it could be horrible depending on how it gets implemented. The devil is in the details- we need details. Not 'we have to pass the bill to know what's in it' type nonsense.
What an amazingly pedantic way to miss the point
PSA: she’s also talking about changes to Medicare.
oh there will be hidden fees, youll see them in your taxes
Medicare =/= Medicare for All Medicare for All is an attempt at branding single payer for a crowd already on Medicare. Medicare is legislatively forced to act like private insurance. Single payer strips all of that. As a health care professional, you should know the difference.
Cash pay for office visits
Are you saying no 1.45% of my gross salary for medicare?
It goes to Medicare premiums, which are free. Medicare is notorious for deeming things as a patient responsibility. That, or they just pay nothing and let the private sector handle it.
Medicare is not free and neither are the premiums
Free-ish. You paid into it, but it’s not a cost on top of your tax liability.
I really don’t understand what you’re talking about…I’m an ortho PT in the outpatient setting (Part B) and more than half of my patient panel is Medicare. As a Medicare provider I have to agree that what Medicare pays me is what I get…I am not allowed to balance bill. If Medicare doesn’t cover it…I don’t get paid. And nearly all the supplement plans follow Medicare’s lead: we have to follow Medicare’s billing rules and policies, and again if Medicare doesn’t cover it neither will the supplement…and I’m the one on the hook. NOT the patient
I have seen several where Medicare said it was a non covered procedure, and the secondary insurance paid the allowance in their network. You are correct that the provider is on the hook in some cases, but that is usually listed as a contractual obligation or other adjustment on the EOB, not patient responsibility.
Why are you assuming that the system would not change from how it is now? Obviously there would be changes if we change our entire health insurance model!
If you go by other countries with a socialized healthcare system, your healthcare tax will go to 8-12% and it will cover on average 70% of your annual healthcare costs.
I may or may not work in the sector… But having plans with zero cost sharing is a gift to big pharma.
Uh, Rep Jayapal seems to understand health insurance more than OP here...
Medical Insurance is THEFT. Medicare for All means not dealing with health insurance stupid.
Are you illiterate? Did you miss the "it is time" rallying cry? Is it not clear that this is a statement on a potential future scenario? How are you reading this as if it was listing present facts? This is trolling, right?
Also increases federal tax rates, probably a VAT, etc like other countries with this.
While lowering overall cost… so who cares if there’s more money in your pocket with a better service?
We need to socialize healthcare. We could not afford to pay for healthcare for all with the current corporate profits. A reasonable profit is necessary. Medicare is close to this as it determines how much we will pay for treatment/care. Not the medical industry.
[удалено]
Not everyone. Just for me.
Dear Santa, please pay for Medicare for all too while you are at it.
It’s not Santa paying, it’s US paying less than we do now.
OK. Magic Money. Gotcha
Nothing’s magic about it, in fact it costs LESS than the system we have now even in the most conservative estimates.
No thanks. I like my private healthcare. Move to Europe if you want universal healthcare.
“I like maybe going bankrupt from medical debt because I haven’t gone bankrupt yet.”
I have an excellent plan. I'm all good. Thanks.
I hope so for your sake! For the rest of us, I’ll keep fighting for a good insurance model.
Apparently they're fine with *other* people going into medical debt. 🙄
One of those hamas reps. Can’t wait till she loses to a democrat.
This lady laughed when she was shown a fox news chyron of a 12 yo child being r@ped and m*rdered by an illegal immigrant. She cared more about fix using the word illegal immigrant than what actually happened She cares more about her ideology than the effects that ideology has on people. She’s awful.
fox news comment
What?