Medicare-for-All Goes Mainstream
The health care reform that dares not speak its name edged out of the shadows yesterday with a New York Times editorial suggesting:
“A new public plan–to offer consumers greater choice, keep the private plans honest and, one can hope, restrain the relentless growth in health care premiums and underlying medical costs–seems worth trying.
“Any new public plan would constitute only part of a much broader effort to provide coverage for 46 million Americans who currently are uninsured and many more who may soon join their ranks. Other major parts under discussion include strengthening employer-provided coverage, expanding existing public programs such as Medicaid and creating a national health insurance exchange where individuals without employer coverage, small businesses and possibly others could buy policies at inexpensive group rates from qualified private plans and, we hope, from a new public plan as well.”
This tiptoe approach to what has been called Medicare-for-All is symptomatic of the political minefields surrounding what experts consider the best solution to health-care reform–a single payer system, which has been gaining the support of doctors, nurses and unions since Rep. John Conyers introduced a bill in the House last year that is not part of the Obama Administration’s “incremental” approach to reforming the system.
9 Responses to “Medicare-for-All Goes Mainstream”
Sign me up. Everyone who thinks private insurance is worth the added cost, you're welcome to it. I hate those selfish greedy pigs who take our money then fight tooth and nail NOT to pay our legitimate health care costs.
I hate those selfish greedy pigs who take our money then fight tooth and nail NOT to pay our legitimate health care costs.
You mean Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care and the VA?
Of course, if the U.S. is going to have free healthcare for everyone, they are going to have to lock down the border, end anchor babies, and stop chain migration. Since the Democratic party has a fetish for unlimited immigration and open borders, there is no way that the u.S. is going to save money with single payer.
Of course, the next question is why would anyone want to think about a career in healthcare when the government will be determining pay, working conditions, or whether your career field will exist next year?
SD, the Dems don't have a fetish for “unlimited immigration” and your team had 8 years to do as they pleased. It pleased them to do nothing.
As for your continued mischaracterization of Medicare, it's just a matter of who writes the checks. The doctors I talk to like Medicare because there is no endless fighting with paid insurance company obstructionists, they are paid promptly and they know exactly what diagnosis codes are covered and what the charge is. Dealing with a horde of insurance companies is no picnic, believe me. Still, doctors are free to refuse Medicare patients, just as many now do, and others refuse to deal with private insurance. It's up to them. And it's up to you to continue to line the pockets of your insurance carrier. No one in the administration has proposed a mandatory single payer system.
DaGoat, maybe you're young enough, healthy enough and rich enough that these issues don't affect you. If that's the case, piss off. I've fought with insurance companies for years. I'm fully entitled to think of them as the lying, greedy scumbags they are.
GD,
Mediciare has some of the lowest reimbursement rates around. Every insurance company knows that mediciare reimbursement rates are and sets the own rates accordingly. Physicians hire consultants to help them to work inside the Mediciare rules. Physicians have to make sure they follow the rules about referrals, follow ups and what they can order. In addition, set the rates change at least once a year, physicians and hospitals take huge financial risks in making any long term decisions. A few years ago, many hospitals invested in cardiac care centers to see Mediciare set the reimbursement rates below costs soon afterward. Medicare costs have been rising much faster than inflation. It is not a great idea just I guess when people push costs onto others, they feel like they are getting a great deal.
Also, President Obama is pushing ahead with an amnesty program, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/0… in the middle of a severe recession. The Democrats are so infatuated with trying to create millions of more automatic Democratic voters, that they are willing to throw blue collar blacks and whites under the bus. HOw can the U.S. hope to improve education, lower carbon emissions, lower sprawl, and train new workers at the same time that it is importing millions of poor, uneducated people from the third world.
If nothing else, the Democratic Party's fetish about immigration demonstrates that they do not really care about the enviornment, education, crimes, or actually helping blue collar Americans.
GD, I'm not disagreeing with you that private insurers are greedy scumbags, I'm disagreeing with you that government health care plans are any better. In many cases they're worse. Although there are pockets of the country where Medicare is actually the best payer, most doctors do not prefer Medicare. The number of doctors that refuse private insurance is extremely small, the only ones I can think of would be the doctors demanding strict cash payment or having a concierge practice. Even in those cases the patient can submit the claim to his insurance on his own.
DaGoat, exactly my point. Dealing with insurance companies requires employees in doctors offices who do nothing but that. In my town at least, there are a half dozen top doctors who just tell patients, YOU deal with your sleazy insurance company. Pay your bill by credit card now. The same is not true of their Medicare patients because the paperwork is relatively less arduous and there's no payment prevention department (up to 80% of insurance company employees I've heard but can't cite a source. anyone?).
SD, I know immigration is a big issue for you, but as I've pointed out before, the cost of rounding up and deporting 20 million “illegals” is more of a budget buster than finding an alternative solution. I'm not thrilled with the situation, but don't accept your accusation that it's all about creating Democratic voters. It is true that both parties are hesitant to alienate Hispanics, which is why your party didn't step up and do something either. A thorny problem. You have any alternative solution to the aforementioned massive roundup attempt? Because that's a nonstarter, and I think you know it.
As for Medicare setting payment “too low,” that's just hard to round with your desire to lower health care costs. Most docs think it's adequate considering the business they would be turning away if they refuse Medicare patients. Please consider that many of the most advanced therapies used in the USA were developed under single payer systems, including open heart surgery, heart transplants and corrective eye surgery, to name just a few. And most of the pharmaceutical research is done outside the US as well, leading to a massive shift in the pharma industry. Our companies are now only 40% of the top ten and around a third of the top 20 pharma companies. Both doctors and drug companies working under single payer systems are not just competent and competitive. They're kicking our butts.
If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com – John Mayer, California