|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 20, 2018 17:48:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 21, 2018 10:57:54 GMT -8
A well written article and kudos to the author for responding to the wing-nut comments and flat out lies.
I've always been a proponent of single payer (Medicare for all) but believe that it must be implemented universally. All must participate.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 21, 2018 11:32:07 GMT -8
A well written article and kudos to the author for responding to the wing-nut comments and flat out lies. I've always been a proponent of single payer (Medicare for all) but believe that it must be implemented universally. All must participate. Well, you seem to have not read, or dismiss out of hand, the comments which cite the failure of government run systems that have been have been tried without success in various states. I'm sure your response to that is to claim that the federal goverment can do a better job. Such naivete would be somewhat endearing if expessed by a 12 year old. Socialized medicine demonstrates the fact that governments always screw up such projects. Cost, rather than patients' health, quickly becomes the number one driving factor. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 21, 2018 13:46:18 GMT -8
A well written article and kudos to the author for responding to the wing-nut comments and flat out lies. I've always been a proponent of single payer (Medicare for all) but believe that it must be implemented universally. All must participate. Well, you seem to have not read, or dismiss out of hand, the comments which cite the failure of government run systems that have been have been tried without success in various states. I'm sure your response to that is to claim that the federal goverment can do a better job. Such naivete would be somewhat endearing if expessed by a 12 year old. Socialized medicine demonstrates the fact that governments always screw up such projects. Cost, rather than patients' health, quickly becomes the number one driving factor. AzWm Thanks for the name calling insult. Taking up where Win left off? How's your Medicare working? I'm surprised you haven't died yet since it is a federal program. And... Medicare is NOT socialized medicine (Kaiser & VA health would be examples in the U.S.). It is a single-payer system. You might also want to review what the primary driving factor in private health insurance is. It is profit not patient health.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Feb 21, 2018 13:48:19 GMT -8
A well written article and kudos to the author for responding to the wing-nut comments and flat out lies. I've always been a proponent of single payer (Medicare for all) but believe that it must be implemented universally. All must participate. Well, you seem to have not read, or dismiss out of hand, the comments which cite the failure of government run systems that have been have been tried without success in various states. I'm sure your response to that is to claim that the federal goverment can do a better job. Such naivete would be somewhat endearing if expessed by a 12 year old. Socialized medicine demonstrates the fact that governments always screw up such projects. Cost, rather than patients' health, quickly becomes the number one driving factor. AzWm The debate over health care in this country will never end until it is provided and guaranteed to every single person. If the trends in income inequality violently reverse in short order, then an individual cost that is something like 5% of gross income won’t be an issue. If the more likely progression of late stage capitalism continues, health care needs to be provided to and guaranteed for each and every person in the country at the expense of those in the top 0.1-1.0% via expanding, graduating, and increasing payroll taxes and instituting both dramatically higher capital gains taxes and a Tobin tax on every financial transaction made in markets over roughly $10k. Until one of those two things happens, as noted above, the fight for universal care will never end and if you don’t like that care being managed by the government - come up with a better idea.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Feb 21, 2018 13:50:35 GMT -8
A well written article and kudos to the author for responding to the wing-nut comments and flat out lies. I've always been a proponent of single payer (Medicare for all) but believe that it must be implemented universally. All must participate. Well, you seem to have not read, or dismiss out of hand, the comments which cite the failure of government run systems that have been have been tried without success in various states. I'm sure your response to that is to claim that the federal goverment can do a better job. Such naivete would be somewhat endearing if expessed by a 12 year old. Socialized medicine demonstrates the fact that governments always screw up such projects. Cost, rather than patients' health, quickly becomes the number one driving factor. AzWm And oh yea - how are those death panels you and ole Sarah P used to go on and on about working out? All that government mandated private insurance really rationing care these days, huh? Lol you’ve kinda shown yourself to be a lightweight in the area of health policy.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Feb 22, 2018 9:40:45 GMT -8
Well, you seem to have not read, or dismiss out of hand, the comments which cite the failure of government run systems that have been have been tried without success in various states. I'm sure your response to that is to claim that the federal goverment can do a better job. Such naivete would be somewhat endearing if expessed by a 12 year old. Socialized medicine demonstrates the fact that governments always screw up such projects. Cost, rather than patients' health, quickly becomes the number one driving factor. AzWm And oh yea - how are those death panels you and ole Sarah P used to go on and on about working out? All that government mandated private insurance really rationing care these days, huh? Lol you’ve kinda shown yourself to be a lightweight in the area of health policy. Aw, come on, go easy on poor addled William. Remember he still lives in a magical land of Libertarian Free Market Fairy Dust™, where price-gouging, etc. doesn't affect him.
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 22, 2018 15:56:48 GMT -8
Well, you seem to have not read, or dismiss out of hand, the comments which cite the failure of government run systems that have been have been tried without success in various states. I'm sure your response to that is to claim that the federal goverment can do a better job. Such naivete would be somewhat endearing if expessed by a 12 year old. Socialized medicine demonstrates the fact that governments always screw up such projects. Cost, rather than patients' health, quickly becomes the number one driving factor. AzWm Thanks for the name calling insult. Taking up where Win left off? How's your Medicare working? I'm surprised you haven't died yet since it is a federal program. And... Medicare is NOT socialized medicine (Kaiser & VA health would be examples in the U.S.). It is a single-payer system. You might also want to review what the primary driving factor in private health insurance is. It is profit not patient health. I agree that health care in the US is about profit. But Medicare (as we currently know it) could only exist in an environment where profit was being made in spite of Medicare. I have helped care for an elderly relative and saw their bills, etc. The Medicare patient, being part of the largest group of negotiated payers, pays the very least (save for the uninsured/indigent) to health care providers for their services. So the non-medicare insured patients pay higher rates and they cover the costs for medical infrastructure, the overhead, the un-insured, etc. The "for-profit" health care provider sees the Medicare (or Medi-Cal) patient as incremental business. OK to have to complete the portfolio of income but not to be relied on soley. That is why Dr. Offices screen new patients and often say they don't accept Medi-Cal, etc. But if everyone walked into their doors paying the same low amount, there would ultimately be rationing - if not directly then by other means (~wait times, pre-qualifications, denials of service based on prognosis, death panels, etc). Just as it is the UK or Canada. The profit motive keeps innovation going. It keeps the fight for life going. If profit is removed, you ultimately get the DMV effect and the organization and staff would all do better with quick turnovers and routine services. Heroic measures and hard cases would be avoided. Those patients tie up beds and resources with only low fixed rates as the payoff. Also, it wouldn't be long until the "single payer" demands control of salaries of the providers (see Canada) and that has its own effects (the most capable Doctors opts for cosmetic or other uninsured health services and your Doctors/nurses/technicians are then increasingly from other countries or backgrounds where they are happy to receive the lower pay). For me, it's like Democracy. The worst form of Government save for all the rest. For profit health care is the worst form of health care save for all the rest.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Feb 22, 2018 16:48:59 GMT -8
Thanks for the name calling insult. Taking up where Win left off? How's your Medicare working? I'm surprised you haven't died yet since it is a federal program. And... Medicare is NOT socialized medicine (Kaiser & VA health would be examples in the U.S.). It is a single-payer system. You might also want to review what the primary driving factor in private health insurance is. It is profit not patient health. I agree that health care in the US is about profit. But Medicare (as we currently know it) could only exist in an environment where profit was being made in spite of Medicare. I have helped care for an elderly relative and saw their bills, etc. The Medicare patient, being part of the largest group of negotiated payers, pays the very least (save for the uninsured/indigent) to health care providers for their services. So the non-medicare insured patients pay higher rates and they cover the costs for medical infrastructure, the overhead, the un-insured, etc. The "for-profit" health care provider sees the Medicare (or Medi-Cal) patient as incremental business. OK to have to complete the portfolio of income but not to be relied on soley. That is why Dr. Offices screen new patients and often say they don't accept Medi-Cal, etc. But if everyone walked into their doors paying the same low amount, there would ultimately be rationing - if not directly then by other means (~wait times, pre-qualifications, denials of service based on prognosis, death panels, etc). Just as it is the UK or Canada. The profit motive keeps innovation going. It keeps the fight for life going. If profit is removed, you ultimately get the DMV effect and the organization and staff would all do better with quick turnovers and routine services. Heroic measures and hard cases would be avoided. Those patients tie up beds and resources with only low fixed rates as the payoff. Also, it wouldn't be long until the "single payer" demands control of salaries of the providers (see Canada) and that has its own effects (the most capable Doctors opts for cosmetic or other uninsured health services and your Doctors/nurses/technicians are then increasingly from other countries or backgrounds where they are happy to receive the lower pay). For me, it's like Democracy. The worst form of Government save for all the rest. For profit health care is the worst form of health care save for all the rest. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 23, 2018 17:20:11 GMT -8
Thanks for the name calling insult. Taking up where Win left off? How's your Medicare working? I'm surprised you haven't died yet since it is a federal program. And... Medicare is NOT socialized medicine (Kaiser & VA health would be examples in the U.S.). It is a single-payer system. You might also want to review what the primary driving factor in private health insurance is. It is profit not patient health. I agree that health care in the US is about profit. But Medicare (as we currently know it) could only exist in an environment where profit was being made in spite of Medicare. I have helped care for an elderly relative and saw their bills, etc. The Medicare patient, being part of the largest group of negotiated payers, pays the very least (save for the uninsured/indigent) to health care providers for their services. So the non-medicare insured patients pay higher rates and they cover the costs for medical infrastructure, the overhead, the un-insured, etc. The "for-profit" health care provider sees the Medicare (or Medi-Cal) patient as incremental business. OK to have to complete the portfolio of income but not to be relied on soley. That is why Dr. Offices screen new patients and often say they don't accept Medi-Cal, etc. But if everyone walked into their doors paying the same low amount, there would ultimately be rationing - if not directly then by other means (~wait times, pre-qualifications, denials of service based on prognosis, death panels, etc). Just as it is the UK or Canada. The profit motive keeps innovation going. It keeps the fight for life going. If profit is removed, you ultimately get the DMV effect and the organization and staff would all do better with quick turnovers and routine services. Heroic measures and hard cases would be avoided. Those patients tie up beds and resources with only low fixed rates as the payoff. Also, it wouldn't be long until the "single payer" demands control of salaries of the providers (see Canada) and that has its own effects (the most capable Doctors opts for cosmetic or other uninsured health services and your Doctors/nurses/technicians are then increasingly from other countries or backgrounds where they are happy to receive the lower pay). For me, it's like Democracy. The worst form of Government save for all the rest. For profit health care is the worst form of health care save for all the rest. I took care of my parents in the last years of their lives and also saw all of the Medicare and supplemental (Blue Cross) statements. Throughout that time I only had one problem and that was with an ambulance company trying to double bill. Funny but I had the same thing happen here too only with our private insurance. Anyway, the coordination between Medicare and Blue Cross was great. Never one instance of head butting. I agree with you that Medicare's reimbursement rates are low. In fact, when private insurers negotiate with providers they start with the Medicare rate as a baseline. The providers then try and negotiate it higher. If you actually look at the Medicare reimbursement rates for hospitals, specialists, primary care providers, and drugs you will see that everyone does OK except the primary care provider. Their reimbursement rates are much too low. I disagree with you regarding your statement that "single payer" would demand control of the salaries of providers. Since we have had single payer Medicare for decades and that has not happened, I don't see it happening in the future.
|
|