Jump to content

I'm a conservative, and i went to an alexandria ocasio-cortez rally

Politics   (9,992 Views 474 Comments)
6 Followers; 98,166 Visitors; 15,177 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 3 of I'm a conservative, and i went to an alexandria ocasio-cortez rally. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

... I do like some parts of ACA, like the protection for people with preexisting conditions but if that is costing insurance company's too much (although I think they probably still make good money) then maybe a plan for them, Medicare or something like that.

How about you? What would you like to see happen?

I have been learning about "Medicare For All" and working for it since 1991.

I am convinced it would cost less than what we have now and more people will get the healthcare they need.

Many studies show it would cost less.

A recent Koch Brother's funded research study also concluded it would cost less and cover more people.

Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University projected that the Senator Sanders "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

But the study conclusion was that "Medicare for All" would result in significant savings for the government because of lower prescription drug costs, saving $846 billion over the next decade.

Lower administrative costs under the plan would save another $1.6 trillion.

It is important to consider that in 2016 USA healthcare spending was $3.3 trillion ($10,348 per person) (Source Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).:

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf

In 2018 more Americans have no health insurance than in 2016.

More Americans are going without health insurance - CBS News

THE STUDY:

The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System

Charles Blahous. "The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System." Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

The Mercatus Center is funded by the Koch Family Foundations:

Mercatus Center - SourceWatch

Charles Koch is on the Board of Directors:

Charles Koch | Mercatus Center

Some in congress planned to lower the age for purchasing Medicare insurance each year. If we had done that every American would have Medicare now.

Because current Medicare only pays 80% of costs there would have to be insurance or government help to pay yhr 20% Medicare does not.

Many could pay the 20% and have catastrophic insurance for costs excdeeding what the person could afford.

] Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

'Medicare for All' would cover everyone, save billions in first year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair Obama had an economy near collapse with millions losing jobs by the week. The American people demanded the government do something. Even President Bush before him handed out "stimulus checks".

Also, I have no respect for anyone that complains about the debt but supported trillion dollar drop in revenue through tax cuts and the huge amount of spending we do on the military. We are now set to borrow more money than anytime in our history despite a good economy.

Also, there are conservatives and Libertarians in particular that believe that things like education, minimum wage, and healthcare should not be considered or provided by the government. I've had many a person say to me "why should I pay for someone else healthcare and education?". Usually people that worked for their own healthcare and education (or had mom and dad pay for it and came up in a time when college was cheap like that) say that. People like Paul Ryan believe that if you take away the safety net, people will fend for themselves and then rise above and be o.k.

Is it a "right" guaranteed under our constitution? No it isn't. Fair point. Should be people be held accountable and work for their keep? Yes. Should they suffer in poverty, walk around with undiagnosed illnesses, not get a fair chance at a college education. It's my opinion that they shouldn't because it's just the decent thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been learning about "Medicare For All" and working for it since 1991.

I am convinced it would cost less than what we have now and more people will get the healthcare they need.

Many studies show it would cost less.

A recent Koch Brother's funded research study also concluded it would cost less and cover more people.

Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University projected that the Senator Sanders "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

But the study conclusion was that "Medicare for All" would result in significant savings for the government because of lower prescription drug costs, saving $846 billion over the next decade.

Lower administrative costs under the plan would save another $1.6 trillion.

It is important to consider that in 2016 USA healthcare spending was $3.3 trillion ($10,348 per person) (Source Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).:

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf

In 2018 more Americans have no health insurance than in 2016.

More Americans are going without health insurance - CBS News

THE STUDY: The Mercatus Center is funded by the Koch Family Foundations:

Mercatus Center - SourceWatch

Charles Koch is on the Board of Directors:

Charles Koch | Mercatus Center

It's debatable if it may or may not save money. These studies don't address how people's behavior changes when they get something for free. My anecdotal evidence from the ER suggests that Medicaid patients over-consume healthcare compared to those on their own insurance.

That question aside, I don't see any studies that addresses the quality of healthcare. It's easy to see that the quality of healthcare may suffer under a Medicaid for all plan. Are you willing to accept that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's debatable if it may or may not save money. These studies don't address how people's behavior changes when they get something for free. My anecdotal evidence from the ER suggests that Medicaid patients over-consume healthcare compared to those on their own insurance.

That question aside, I don't see any studies that addresses the quality of healthcare. It's easy to see that the quality of healthcare may suffer under a Medicaid for all plan. Are you willing to accept that?

How is it "easy to see" that quality of care "may" suffer? Do you have any evidence for that proposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it "easy to see" that quality of care "may" suffer? Do you have any evidence for that proposition?

Yes. I've read a lot on this subject. In the interest of time, I'll go for the low-hanging fruit for now. What do you think will happen to physician and nurse pay under a Medicaid for all plan? And what will be the effect if that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
Yes. I've read a lot on this subject. In the interest of time, I'll go for the low-hanging fruit for now. What do you think will happen to physician and nurse pay under a Medicaid for all plan? And what will be the effect if that?

Okay, Dude, I'll bite.

What has happened to MD and nurse pay in countries with a single-payer healthcare system?

And maybe Grumpy and Phil, who have worked, and do work under such a system can join in on the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I've read a lot on this subject. In the interest of time, I'll go for the low-hanging fruit for now. What do you think will happen to physician and nurse pay under a Medicaid for all plan? And what will be the effect if that?

I imagine the pay would be less. Do you have documentation that that would necessarily, automatically lead to a lower quality of care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's debatable if it may or may not save money. These studies don't address how people's behavior changes when they get something for free. My anecdotal evidence from the ER suggests that Medicaid patients over-consume healthcare compared to those on their own insurance.

That question aside, I don't see any studies that addresses the quality of healthcare. It's easy to see that the quality of healthcare may suffer under a Medicaid for all plan. Are you willing to accept that?

What's commonly proposed and what Herrings's post refers to is Medicare for all, not Medicaid for all, those are two very different things.

Under the current model with it's insured/uninsured mix of patients hospitals receive widely varying reimbursement for the same services, which we know adversely affects the quality of care that can be provided, including having large geographic areas with no healthcare services at all anymore. If you're referring to Medicare for all, then no, there doesn't seem to be a basis for believing it would create a worse quality of care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I've read a lot on this subject. In the interest of time, I'll go for the low-hanging fruit for now. What do you think will happen to physician and nurse pay under a Medicaid for all plan? And what will be the effect if that?
There is no proposal for "MEDICAID for all."

Many have been working for "MEDICARE For All"

Medicare pays more to providers than Medicaid.

Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan cost: would actually save money - Business Insider

Medicare is a health insurance program for:

• People age 65 or older.

• People under age 65 with certain disabilities.

• People of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant).

Medicare Program - General Information - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

I paid into Medicare with payroll deduction from 1964 to 2014. (I began working in 1959 when there was no Medicare)

The first benefit I received was my grandparent's having health insurance.

After my grandfather died in 1944 my grandma owed more than 20 thousand dollars for his cancer care.

She worked long hours for slightly more than the minimum wage which was thirty cents an hour. It would have taken 33 years to pay off if she paid 100% of her income on his medical debt.

But she started a welcome service before there was "Welcome Wagon" and earned more than she could at the cafeteria where she continued working.

Finally, when she turned 65 she sold her home and began living with family.

She lived with my husband and I and our kids from October the May from 1969 until her death in 1978. Because she had Medicare we didn't have to choose whether to buy a house of help pay her medical bills. She had been diabetic since 1932 so needed healthcare. She was hospitalized twice. Once for a cholecystectomy and then when she had an MI and died at age 82.

BEFORE MEDICARE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN OFTEN HAD TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO PAY THEIR BILLS OR SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY.

I turned 65 in 2009 and enrolled in Medicare. I pay a premium that is deducted from my Social Security check. (I worked until almost 70, but was part time since I didn't need to work for insurance. I paid my Medicare premium quarterly until beginning to get Social Security in 2014)

Until last year I only had one visit a year with the usual preventative care. I paid for my shingles vaccine.

Last year the sumatriptan that I had taken PRN for migraine headaches went out of fvor with my Part D insurance so I now see an NP for migraine prevention twice a year. Last year I had pneumonia which required antibiotics and two physician visits.

Every other year I have an eye exam with glaucoma test. I pay for the vision exam and eyeglasses myself. Once I had a white bump in my lashes. The doctor told me to return in 6 months. I did. Medicare did not pay because it was not necessary. They tried to make me pay until I showed the written recommendation to return in six months. Because the doctor wrote that I didn't have to pay. I think he learned something.

I think payments to providers should cover the true costs of care. That should include adequate salaries for physicians, nurses, and all healthcare workers. (But non what is billes because that is way over cost.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's debatable if it may or may not save money.

How could it possibly become any more expensive? You guys pay more for healthcare per capita than pretty much every country on earth. Looking at what you spend, you should have an average life expectancy of about 114 years... Here's a thought... Perhaps you should figure out a way to stop lining the pockets of insurance companies....

These studies don't address how people's behavior changes when they get something for free. My anecdotal evidence from the ER suggests that Medicaid patients over-consume healthcare compared to those on their own insurance.

Your anecdotal evidence isn't worth a whole lot. If you're really interested to learn what happens when people are covered by universal healthcare, you could always look up the numbers of how many physician visits per year a person living in such a country makes. Or not. You could just go with your anecdotal stuff I guess.

That question aside, I don't see any studies that addresses the quality of healthcare. It's easy to see that the quality of healthcare may suffer under a Medicaid for all plan. Are you willing to accept that?

Why is it in your opinion easy to see that the quality goes down under a Medicaid for all plan?

Yes. I've read a lot on this subject. In the interest of time, I'll go for the low-hanging fruit for now. What do you think will happen to physician and nurse pay under a Medicaid for all plan? And what will be the effect if that?

It's not easy to compare pay from country to country, since so many factors affect how much "bang for your buck" you get.

I just checked, using a global wage calculator, and it seems last year I made 148% of my country's average annual pay (well, actually I made a bit more, but I'm excluding the overtime pay I made to make this fair).

So the 148% is based on base pay and shift differentials, but not including overtime. I asked my sister, who's a physician, and she made 252% for that same year. Of course neither of us have medical malpractice // insurance (it's not a thing here) and we don't have to buy healthcare insurance. Etc. etc.

In order to make the 148% of the average annual pay in my country, I work fulltime, which in my case translates to 32.2 hours per week on nightshifts. (Shorter working weeks because I work nights). I have six and a half weeks of paid vacation each year.

So how does one compare salaries in a meaningful way?

I'm reasonably sure that if you compare dollar to dollar, I probably make less than I would in the U.S. under your current system. However, I'm not convinced that what I make results in a less "lavish" lifestyle or less satisfaction/happiness. I mean, I own my apartment in the central parts of my beautiful city, I travel abroad 3-4 times per year, I can save/invest money after all bills and living expenditures are paid, and I don't have to worry if I'll be able to manage financially when I retire or should I become sick. I'm happy.

By the way, I find it a bit sad but also quite revealing that you think that quality of healthcare has an automatic correlation to a nurse's or physician's pay.

I don't think it matters what I or anyone else says about the benefits of universal healthcare coverage. I think you are ideologically opposed to the concept.

I'm glad all people in my country can afford healthcare for themselves and their families. All I can tell you, for me personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Edited by macawake
adding //... For some reason some words and phrases are made into hyperlinks.. and I wanted to remove that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it matters much, but my "Medicaid" for all was a typo.

As hospitals and physicians are currently paid by a mix of Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and cash. When private insurance goes away and is replaced by Medicare, reimbursements are going to go down.

Decreased reimbursement $$$ effects supply and quality of healthcare resources.

All of us here believe nurse staffing effects quality of care. Does anyone who has worked in a acute care hospital not believe that if your employer receives less reimbursement revenue that nurses will be further understaffed and/or underpaid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×