Posted on 03/09/2020 6:49:36 AM PDT by karpov
It may seem counterintuitive, but single-payer health care proposals like Medicare for All could very well destroy Medicare as we know it and jeopardize medical care for seniors. It’s not just because single-payer systems like those in Britain and Canada hold down costs by limiting the availability of doctors and treatments, even for the most serious life-threatening diseases like cancer, brain tumors and heart disease. And it’s not just because single-payer systems restrict access to the newest drugs for cancer and other serious diseases, sometimes for years, compared with the United States system. Or that single-payer systems have shown to have worse outcomes than the United States system for many common diseases like cancer, high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease and diabetes. Or that tens of thousands of additional citizens died because of wait times for nonemergency treatment. And it’s not just because the Medicare for All Act by Bernie Sanders could cost an estimated $32 trillion in its first decade, more than double all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections.
Beyond that, Medicare for All will radically change health care for today’s seniors because access to America’s hospitals and doctors for those on Medicare depends on higher payments from private insurance. According to a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, while private insurance often pays over 140 percent of the cost of care, Medicare and Medicaid pay an estimated 60 percent of what private insurance pays for inpatient services, and an estimated 60 to 80 percent for physician services. Most hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and in-home health care providers already lose money per Medicare patient. By 2040, approximately half of hospitals, roughly two-thirds of skilled nursing facilities, and over 80 percent of home health agencies would lose money overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
so it took a “red scare” to get the NYT to start telling it’s readers that nationalized health care is dangerous?
Medicare sounds horrible. We should end it as soon as possible.
I ask my retired friends ‘as so many on the Left believe that we are no longer contributing members of Society, how much health care do you really think we would get, when healthcare is administered by the Government’? I watched as my FIL in Britain had a slow death, with a caregiver coming to his house twice a week to ‘administer care’, when he should have been in the hospital. I do believe he would have survived much longer had he had immediate care in the hospital, but hospital beds in Britain are precious.
Don't worry about whether you'll be treated for a serious condition....
...because they won't authorize a timely test in the first place.
Too bad almost everything I get done medically goes “towards the deductible” meaning I pay out of pocket for almost everything on top of $10,000/year in premiums, $20K/yr married. So the “threat” of socialized medine is what, where, how?
I’m surprised the NYT would even print this.
Nine out of 10 Medicare recipients have supplemental insurance, i.e., Medigap, to cover what Medicare does not cover fully. No way private insurance can be eliminated under a Medicare for all scenario unless you fundamentally change Medicare.
Nine out of 10 Medicare recipients have supplemental insurance, i.e., Medigap, to cover what Medicare does not cover fully. No way private insurance can be eliminated under a Medicare for all scenario unless you fundamentally change Medicare.
I say we run a Medicare for All test first by requiring that ALL Public Employee’s and Court Officers Nationwide immediately enroll in Medicare For All. In 5 years we will know the results.
“Medicare sounds horrible.”
All it is is government brokered health care...federal HMO. And the people that don’t play the game with it, make the rules for it.
You still pay for it, and it is still used by a number of doctors until they are losing so much money from it and then they refuse customers to get them back on retail as they have a monopoly being a doctor and the feds make sure they charge enough to cover their liability insurance.
A malpractice suit will cost them a lot. So the premiums are huge. Pass the cost.
rwood
Only cynics would ask the question, "What could go wrong/"
I spent 40 years under an American socialized medicine program. It was called “military medical care,” and I was first the dependent of an active duty member and then I served during my own career and went to the same kind of medical facilities.
I developed a personal test for when to go to the doctor. Don’t bother going unless you have: 1. A high fever; 2. External bleeding; 3. An obviously broken bone.
Military medicine was perfectly adequate to deal with people of military age and their families. Oh, and the military members were (and still are, as far as I know) prohibited by law from suing for malpractice.
I say that anyone who wants socialized medicine, or “single payer” as they say today, should get it. Good and hard. I would also wish them a long life to suffer under it, too, but that is sort of self contradictory. As much as they deserve to live long under it, their lives will be predictably shorter.
I keep hearing Sarah Palin’s words in my mind.
Well, since his book is entitled “Restoring Health Care Quality”, I presume he has an explanation for what happened to it.
Canadian style healthcare explained by a French-Canadian.
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-truth-about-canadian-healthcare/
I was active duty in the 80s, and it was clear that the doctor's first duty was to send malingerers back to work. So yes, I too learned that unless it was something he could see, don't bother going.
I bet the rest have Medicaid to bolster their Medicare. I can’t imagine how anyone survives on Medicare alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.