IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Try to comprehend the simple fact that most big city hospitals charge much more than small town hospitals. Also, look at costs based on the difference in cost by states or even countries.

Oh, come on. We're never sure how much programs are going to add to the debt or save us. Not a single program has been passed, in the history of America, which didn't have some uncertainty over the costs and effects. To say that we shouldn't pass any legislation, in which we're not sure of the overall costs, is to say that we shouldn't pass any legislation.
Cycloptichorn

I think that we already have a national program that works - and works great - for a subset: Medicare. The methods of collecting funds for this program are well-understood and people are long used to them; why not expand it to cover everyone who doesn't have private insurance?

It would probably be easier to do it on a state by state basis, or piggy back it onto an existing system like medicare, than it would be to establish something new from scratch at the federal level.

The existence of some small irreducable uncertainty in the cost isn't the issue here. Instead we face huge discrepancies between the President's vague (but non specific) assurances about "his plan" and obvious contradictions in the specifics of the several variants in the Congress - all overlaid by a general reluctance of the Democrat majority to consider - or even review - the details of any plan in the name of some presumed need to move quickly.

Ask your doctor if he or she accepts new patients under Medicare. Then ask why not?

Ask your doctor if he or she accepts new patients under Medicare. Then ask why not? Then consider that fifty billion dollars are going to be saved (taken) from Medicare benefits over the next ten years to pay for some form of universal health care. This is at least a proposal, if not a fact at this time.

I'm thinking your doctor might be considering the virtues of early retirement if required to participate. If not required to participate, we are apt to end up with a system under which every has coverage, and nobody accepts it.

Do you have documentation of where these benefits are going to be cut? I haven't seen this in my examination of the bills put forth.

Cycloptichorn

But the thing that I like about the Medicare for all idea is that it allows those of us who don't require a lot of care to pay into it, which I hope would then mean that would be properly funded and could afford to pay doctors fairly.

roger wrote:

Ask your doctor if he or she accepts new patients under Medicare. Then ask why not? Then consider that fifty billion dollars are going to be saved (taken) from Medicare benefits over the next ten years to pay for some form of universal health care. This is at least a proposal, if not a fact at this time.

Do you have documentation of where these benefits are going to be cut? I haven't seen this in my examination of the bills put forth.

Quote:

I'm thinking your doctor might be considering the virtues of early retirement if required to participate. If not required to participate, we are apt to end up with a system under which every has coverage, and nobody accepts it.

Let them retire. They will be replaced by people who want to work. This whole 'going Galt' bullshit is a total farce, a joke. It's an empty threat.

As long as there is a need to be served, people will step up to serve that need. If doctors who demand ultra-high payments for their services retire, they will be replaced by younger doctors who are willing to work for less. This actually has the potential to drive the costs of healthcare far downward.

This could also be combated by breaking the AMA's lock on and complete control of the medical schooling system, to allow for more people to get medical training.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you have documentation of where these benefits are going to be cut? I haven't seen this in my examination of the bills put forth.

Cycloptichorn

Speech by Barrack Obama. Believe it, or go look it up.

It includes a 20% cut in specialists compensation. Additional cuts in diagnostic services, and I don't believe he specified what constitutes diagnostic services.

Cool beans! You are saying Medicare compensation is not being cut to finance other parts of national care, and I am glad to hear it.

roger wrote:

Cool beans! You are saying Medicare compensation is not being cut to finance other parts of national care, and I am glad to hear it.

Not according to the Wall Street Journal article on this topic where I got my information from, anyway.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124646885862181139.html

I found it by searching for: "20% cut in specialists compensation."

Per another article I've read, upgrading to electronic record collection has the potential to save billions - but hasn't been done, in part b/c decreasing the overall cost of healthcare decreases the overall profits of an insurance company or hospital who makes money on the margins. There's just no downward pressure on prices in our current system whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

roger wrote:

Cool beans! You are saying Medicare compensation is not being cut to finance other parts of national care, and I am glad to hear it.

Not according to the Wall Street Journal article on this topic where I got my information from, anyway.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124646885862181139.html

I found it by searching for: "20% cut in specialists compensation."

Per another article I've read, upgrading to electronic record collection has the potential to save billions - but hasn't been done, in part b/c decreasing the overall cost of healthcare decreases the overall profits of an insurance company or hospital who makes money on the margins. There's just no downward pressure on prices in our current system whatsoever.

It's fair to say that Medicare compensation to specialists is being cut in order to finance other parts of national care.

I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. I guess I'll find out when I need a specialist.

By Lori Montgomery and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 14, 2009

President Obama yesterday outlined measures to trim spending on federal health programs for the elderly and the poor by an additional $313 billion over the next decade, bringing his total proposed savings close to the amount necessary to cover the cost of his signature health-care plan, a top adviser said.

Oh, Damn. Cyclo had me squatting in tall cotton for a little while.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061301044.html

Trims to Medicare, Medicaid Are Proposed to Help Fund Reform

Quote:

By Lori Montgomery and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 14, 2009

President Obama yesterday outlined measures to trim spending on federal health programs for the elderly and the poor by an additional $313 billion over the next decade, bringing his total proposed savings close to the amount necessary to cover the cost of his signature health-care plan, a top adviser said.

Oh, well. It looks like he's only talking about the elderly and the poor.

Of course, it all comes down to "waste and inefficiencies". No politician in memory has come down in favor of more waste and inefficiency. I picked my doctor for professional competence. I continue to trust his judgement.

In his weekly radio address, Obama proposed limiting the growth of Medicare fee-for-service payments, taking hospitals and other health-care providers at their word that they will reduce costs. He also proposed cutting subsidies to hospitals that treat uninsured patients on the theory that such payments will decline as more people are covered through his plan.

The president also called for reducing payments to drug companies that serve Medicare recipients. Advisers declined to release details, saying the idea is still under discussion.

From the new Times/CBS poll out this evening ...

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Favor 65%
Oppose 26%

Interestingly, according to the poll, support for a public option has jumped 5 points since late August and opposition to it has dropped 8 points.