Jump to content
personreal

So, You Say You Want Government Run Healthcare?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CrimeaRiver said:

The reports show much more of it went missing in the Obama 8 yrs than the Bush 8 yrs.

That's what I've seen too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only profiteers want to keep the current system and they are really dumb about Single Payer Insurance. And they lie a lot.

 

There is no government health care included in Single Payer Insurance. The current health care providers will still be around and everyone will be able 

to choose who and where which would be new and more convenient UNLIKE the current insurance system. 

 

Oh yeah the deductibles and co-pays would be tossed in the trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, personreal said:

220px-Acne_vulgaris_ill_artlibre_jn.png

So, You Say You Want Government Run Healthcare?

 

slapping.gif

Say WHEN!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA Single Payer vs Canadian system are two very different animals.  USA single payer will never be a Canadian clone .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merrill said:

The current health care providers will still be around

Not if they can't survive on Medicare reimbursement rates.

 

It's just amazing how clueless and ignorant some people are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JoeAverage said:

Not if they can't survive on Medicare reimbursement rates.

They can not only survive, but thrive.   For example, my office has 6 doctors and 17 billing and reimbursement people.  Two of that staff work exclusively Medicare claims.  The other 15 handle commercial insurance claims.  Subtract those 15 salaries (as well as their benefit packages) from the practice's bottom line and....voila!  Profit margin galore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Health Service (NHS)

is the publicly funded national healthcare system for England.

It is the largest and the oldest

single-payer healthcare system

in the world.

 

Having the Government confiscate

an additional 25% of your Paycheck

for Single-Payer Health-care...

 

...and then Pulling your own Teeth!

 

Now we pull out our own teeth: Boom in DIY dental kits

 

THOUSANDS of Britons are carrying out DIY dentistry, pulling their own teeth with pliers and using household glue to stick down fillings

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

An additional 25% of your Paycheck... that's the kicker, eh?

 

Wonder why all the Gibsmedat Communist n!ggers on this site

push this Marxist bullsh!t so hard...?

 

Doesn't say an additional 25% of their EBT Welfare check, now does it.

 

 

1168100634-0348d236375cece2bb8733011c1ea

 

An additional 25% of YOUR Paycheck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 hours ago, slideman said:

Medicare would be a better comparison but then that would negate your argument wouldn't it

Medicare loses 60 billion a year in fraud(15% of their total spending right off the top, bitch) and is turning over high risk patients over to private insurance to try and cut costs YOU MORON. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RollingRock said:

They can not only survive, but thrive.   For example, my office has 6 doctors and 17 billing and reimbursement people.  Two of that staff work exclusively Medicare claims.  The other 15 handle commercial insurance claims.  Subtract those 15 salaries (as well as their benefit packages) from the practice's bottom line and....voila!  Profit margin galore.

Hmm, interesting. All things being equal, you tying to tell us that only 11.7% (2 divided by 17) of the patients that come to see your doctors are on Medicare? You do all use the same billing codes right?

 

Sounds like you have a smart group of Doctors there that limit the lost revenue from the low Medicare reimbursement rates. It is a well known fact that Medicare reimbursement rates are less than the cost of services. There is a reason why you could spend several days calling around to all the Doctors offices trying to find someone that accepts Medicare.

 

Just for fun, ask one of your Doctors today how long they would stay in business with 100% only Medicare reimbursement rates.

 

If you really have been a medical biller for decades, you know what Medicare pays. I have been looking at Medicare EOB's for well over a decade and they don't pay squat.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, merrill said:

USA Single Payer vs Canadian system are two very different animals.  USA single payer will never be a Canadian clone .

 

 

punishment-slap-smiley-emoticon.gif

......Except for the FACT.....the U.S. doesn't have Single Payer!!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government sucks at everything.  They cant even fix a pothole unless there are 45 guys standing around looking at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vegas said:

The government sucks at everything.  They cant even fix a pothole unless there are 45 guys standing around looking at.

The real amount of waste by the government would stun us!

 

Remember those $600 toilet seats?  That was decades ago...the government has gotten much better at waste since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JoeAverage said:

Hmm, interesting. All things being equal, you tying to tell us that only 11.7% (2 divided by 17) of the patients that come to see your doctors are on Medicare? You do all use the same billing codes right?

No, it's more like 25%-30% of our patients have Medicare.  Medicare is much easier to process than commercial insurance (which often requires prior authorizations, medical reviews, letters of medical necessity, qualifying lab tests, etc).  We often have to talk to a bunch of self-important Dilberts (who work on the behalf of the insurance company) who review a potential medical services and determine if it's something the insurance company will pay for.  Commercial insurance is increasingly work intensive on the provider end.  There are far more denials, resulting in a long appeals process and, sometimes, even litigation.  Nothing just pays without a bunch of administrative hoop jumping.

 

Quote

Sounds like you have a smart group of Doctors there that limit the lost revenue from the low Medicare reimbursement rates. It is a well known fact that Medicare reimbursement rates are less than the cost of services. There is a reason why you could spend several days calling around to all the Doctors offices trying to find someone that accepts Medicare.

 

Just for fun, ask one of your Doctors today how long they would stay in business with 100% only Medicare reimbursement rates.

I don't have to ask the docs for that.  We'd have to seriously downsize to survive on Medicare rates alone.  That said, commercial insurance isn't going anywhere.  We make sure we have a balanced payer mix of both commercial and government payers.

 

Quote

If you really have been a medical biller for decades, you know what Medicare pays. I have been looking at Medicare EOB's for well over a decade and they don't pay squat.

You're right, Medicare doesn't pay much at all.   I'm not dead set on Medicare for All.  All I want is for everyone (from Bill Gates to the homeless guy sleeping on the heating grates) to be able to see a doctor if they need to (without fear of being sent to collections, being forced into bankruptcy, or having their home foreclosed on as their medical expenses increase).  It is my opinion that anyone making less than $50k annually doesn't make enough to manage any chronic health issues such as asthma and diabetes, which are pretty common.  Prescriptions don't get filled, appointments get missed.....because people just don't have the money.

 

In the wealthiest country on earth, there has to be a better answer than "pay for it or go die."  Those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, yet don't make enough to pay for a policy are falling through the cracks....and many are dying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

No, it's more like 25%-30% of our patients have Medicare.  Medicare is much easier to process than commercial insurance (which often requires prior authorizations, medical reviews, letters of medical necessity, qualifying lab tests, etc).  We often have to talk to a bunch of self-important Dilberts (who work on the behalf of the insurance company) who review a potential medical services and determine if it's something the insurance company will pay for.  Commercial insurance is increasingly work intensive on the provider end.  There are far more denials, resulting in a long appeals process and, sometimes, even litigation.  Nothing just pays without a bunch of administrative hoop jumping.

 

I don't have to ask the docs for that.  We'd have to seriously downsize to survive on Medicare rates alone.  That said, commercial insurance isn't going anywhere.  We make sure we have a balanced payer mix of both commercial and government payers.

 

You're right, Medicare doesn't pay much at all.   I'm not dead set on Medicare for All.  All I want is for everyone (from Bill Gates to the homeless guy sleeping on the heating grates) to be able to see a doctor if they need to (without fear of being sent to collections, being forced into bankruptcy, or having their home foreclosed on as their medical expenses increase).  It is my opinion that anyone making less than $50k annually doesn't make enough to manage any chronic health issues such as asthma and diabetes, which are pretty common.  Prescriptions don't get filled, appointments get missed.....because people just don't have the money.

 

In the wealthiest country on earth, there has to be a better answer than "pay for it or go die."  Those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, yet don't make enough to pay for a policy are falling through the cracks....and many are dying.  

 

I like your idea of having both.   Gov. and private commercial.

If......the gov. can work at no cost to the tax-payer.    We are 23 Trillion in debt. 

We must leave the tax-payer out of the equation.                                                      🍹

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

No, it's more like 25%-30% of our patients have Medicare.  Medicare is much easier to process than commercial insurance (which often requires prior authorizations, medical reviews, letters of medical necessity, qualifying lab tests, etc).  We often have to talk to a bunch of self-important Dilberts (who work on the behalf of the insurance company) who review a potential medical services and determine if it's something the insurance company will pay for.  Commercial insurance is increasingly work intensive on the provider end.  There are far more denials, resulting in a long appeals process and, sometimes, even litigation.  Nothing just pays without a bunch of administrative hoop jumping.

 

And this is one of the ways that insurance does help cut down on cost growth.  It hasn't worked terribly well over the years, but it's not as if insurance companies do nothing to control costs.  If there is insurance company competition (and there isn't always, but when there is), insurance companies have an inherent mission to strike a balance between providing coverage their members value, at a premium cost employers are okay with, without rewarding providers for providing care that might not be medically necessary (or is at best arguable in terms of necessity).  If it goes too far to be ruthless in cost cutting, it can be a very successful company but have a reputation among members as being a terrible company (UnitedHealth comes to mind).  Providers often hate them and members often hate them, yet they keep making tons of money.  If on the other hand they are too loose and generous, members often love them but their premiums grow so fast that employers (or members themselves, if they pay their own premiums) start complaining about that side of it.

 

Quote

I don't have to ask the docs for that.  We'd have to seriously downsize to survive on Medicare rates alone.  That said, commercial insurance isn't going anywhere.  We make sure we have a balanced payer mix of both commercial and government payers.

 

Most would have to downsize, and some just couldn't even make it work at all.  In my case, we wouldn't have to downsize, but we'd probably have to push our billable hours significantly past what's optimal, which hinders provider/service quality a bit.  Maxed out providers tend not to provide as good of care as those same providers would provide if they weren't absolutely maxed.  Which is one aspect of the quality concerns when it comes to single payer and non-hospital fee-for-service clinics/practices (hospitals would be global budget, which presents an entirely different set of quality concerns/pitfalls).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DeepBreath said:

Medicare loses 60 billion a year in fraud(15% of their total spending right off the top, bitch) and is turning over high risk patients over to private insurance to try and cut costs YOU MORON. 😂

Both those statements are outright lies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollingRock said:

No, it's more like 25%-30% of our patients have Medicare. 

I have seen numbers floated that Medicare rates would have to go up 9-10%. You think that would do it? I am a little leery of the proposed cost savings under MFA, they say it will cost x and end up costing y.

 

2 hours ago, RollingRock said:

I don't have to ask the docs for that.  We'd have to seriously downsize to survive on Medicare rates alone. 

I see that as a major problem with MFA. Increase the demand and decrease provider supply will not provide improved healthcare. Of course there is always heavily subsidizing clinics to keep the doors open which kind of blows a hole in the cost savings.

 

2 hours ago, RollingRock said:

You're right, Medicare doesn't pay much at all.

I know that, you know that but there is a perception that healthcare providers are getting rich on Medicare and Medicaid.

 

2 hours ago, RollingRock said:

In the wealthiest country on earth, there has to be a better answer than "pay for it or go die." 

There probably is an answer somewhere down the line, lets not blow up the entire system to get there.

 

It has been interesting over the last 9 years to watch the regional hospital the wife works at to keep up with demand. Any expansion is immediately filled and as Neo mentioned above, being maxed out does not provide better care. As we speak the wife is tapping on her phone on her day off communicating with a co-worker on a complicated patient. She is the resident expert and number one on the contact list for less experienced SLP's.

 

I don't have the answers, just trying to keep what we have earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vegas said:

The government sucks at everything.  They cant even fix a pothole unless there are 45 guys standing around looking at.

+100.

Good one !!                  😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JoeAverage said:

I have seen numbers floated that Medicare rates would have to go up 9-10%. You think that would do it? I am a little leery of the proposed cost savings under MFA, they say it will cost x and end up costing y.

 

I see that as a major problem with MFA. Increase the demand and decrease provider supply will not provide improved healthcare. Of course there is always heavily subsidizing clinics to keep the doors open which kind of blows a hole in the cost savings.

 

I know that, you know that but there is a perception that healthcare providers are getting rich on Medicare and Medicaid.

 

There probably is an answer somewhere down the line, lets not blow up the entire system to get there.

 

It has been interesting over the last 9 years to watch the regional hospital the wife works at to keep up with demand. Any expansion is immediately filled and as Neo mentioned above, being maxed out does not provide better care. As we speak the wife is tapping on her phone on her day off communicating with a co-worker on a complicated patient. She is the resident expert and number one on the contact list for less experienced SLP's.

 

I don't have the answers, just trying to keep what we have earned.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this article:

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Ass-douche Self-entitled Adolescent Socialist malcontents -

...can never honestly respond to this simple Question:

4facc3e9a1dc630ce9a9934f5b092811.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a problem not related to healthcare itself.  

 

If we do away with the enormous useless fatty bureaucracies of the insurance companies, the bloated drug companies, the massive hospital corporations, and we actually managed to implement a system that simply provided public health insurance for all...

 

...all of that fat is going to have to go somewhere.  Right now, we subsidize a fair number of people who don't actually do a whole lot, productivity-wise.  Their jobs are somewhere between totally useless and mostly redundant.  We subsidize them through the enormous bloat across our healthcare industries, from insurance to drug companies. Their profits are so huge that they can pay some useless blob to attend middle management meetings quibbling over nothing.  They can pay to have row after row of desks staffed by poorly trained people who take claims calls and shuffle papers around, send people down dead-end alleys for months before somebody manages to actually resolve a claim.  They can do that, and still ring the cash register, recording record-breaking profits year after year after year.

 

If we cleaned that sh!t show up, all of those useless positions would, by definition, have to dry up.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing.  Jobs that don't produce anything or serve anybody in any useful way obviously should go away.  But we're going to have to do something with those people.  Some of them are low motivation people, of course, which you can tell within 15 seconds of calling to get your insurance claim sorted out.  They're not going to be particularly proactive-- or perhaps even capable --when it comes to seizing any opportunities we roll out there to re-train them and facilitate this transition away from pouring what amounts to welfare through their salaries, to a more efficient system.

 

We may just have to put them all on welfare.  Pay them to do nothing.  And you know what?  I'd take it, in a heartbeat.  I'd pay the taxes to cover my public health insurance, and I'd pay the taxes to cover the deadbeats that can not or will not train themselves up to do something else.  It's obviously not all of them, so it will be a smaller load.  And we don't have to keep them in drug-company-salary-type money, either.  So it should cost less.  And at least it'll be HONEST.  But much more importantly, when it comes time to get healthcare, I don't have to call them. I don't have to listen to them passive-aggressively threaten to wreck my life by dragging their feet, just not caring, being incompetent, stonewalling my claim.  I don't have to depend on them for anything.

 

Massive win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vegas said:

giphy.webp

The government sucks at everything.  They cant even fix a pothole unless there are 45 guys standing around looking at.

 

 

Quote

 

wankin.gif

 

Yeah....all those Libertarians, out there, are really doing quite the bang-up job of showing everyone-else how to fill pot-holes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Taipan said:

ninja-hillbilly_diemon-dave.jpg

I like your idea of having both.   Gov. and private commercial.

If......the gov. can work at no cost to the tax-payer.

 

relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon.gif

You surely-do seem to enjoy showing-off your cluelessness, schoolboy.

 

Quote

 

The Bill Moyer Journal: Profit$ Over People

July 10, 2009

 

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

 

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

 

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

 

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, DeepBreath said:

tenor.gif

 

giphy.gif?cid=790b7611b9a38444ba0c137eac

 

Medicare loses 60 billion a year in fraud(15% of their total spending right off the top, bitch) and is turning over high risk patients over to private insurance to try and cut costs YOU MORON.

why-do-republicans-believe-everything-th

 

 

Quote

 

pillow.gif

 

hitchens-razor.png

 

Quote

November 23, 2005

 

"Last week saw the launch of the enrollment period for the new Medicare prescription drug plan. Judging by the initial reception by beneficiaries, Congress and the market alike, the Medicare drug benefit is off to a rocky start. That should come as a surprise to no one for a program that was designed to fail.

 

For starters, the White House insisted that the final December 2003 Medicare Drug bill prohibit the government from negotiating prices directly with drug companies, a key demand of the pharmaceutical lobby. The same price leverage enjoyed by the Veterans Affairs Department and its program beneficiaries was surrendered by Medicare, with the predictable results described in the House report this week. In another poison pill added by the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act beginning in 2010 provides $ub$idie$ to private insurers to compete with traditional Medicare."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000285.htm

 

 

Quote

December 30, 2019

 

 

 

Quote

 

abbie_hoffman.jpg?w=600

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...