Sanders Wants 'Medicare For All.' Here Are 8 Reasons That's Dumb.

[GURPS]

Sanders Wants 'Medicare For All.' Here Are 8 Reasons That's Dumb.



Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has an idiotic alternative to Obamacare: "Medicare for All."

The wild-eyed socialist stated his intention to propose such a bill at a recent town hall, saying, "It is a common sense proposal, and I think once the American people understand it, we can go forward with it."

Here are eight reasons why that proposal is foolish:

1. Medicare underpays doctors. Since 1999, the program has paid doctors about 80 percent of what private insurers pay, according to CNN Money:

Private insurers allow an average of $1,226 for low-back disc surgery, while Medicare will only permit $654, for instance.

And the gap can grow wider depending on where the patient is. In New York, insurers allow $1,352 for a gall bladder removal, compared to $580 for Medicare.

Some services are more comparable. For office visits by established patients, for instance, Medicare will allow 92% of what insurers do.​

According to The Wall Street Journal, Medicare’s low reimbursement rates have resulted in some doctors being compelled "to see 30 or more patients a day to make ends meet."

The reason for Medicare’s underpayment is that the program uses a centralized point system to assign values to various services, creating reimbursement rates that are below market value and forcing doctors to raise costs elsewhere to make up the difference.

 

[Larry Gude]

#1, underpays doctors compared to insurance, is addressable. It can certainly be fixed, adjusted annually, modified, etc.

#2, well, complex set up codes. OK, so, isn't that addressable, too?

#3, waste, fraud and abuse. Ah, so it pays TOO much? Again, addressable.

#4, records access. Again, Addressable.

#5, fewer doctors taking it. Well, address the first 4 and, again, addressable.

#6, claim denying. Again , addressable.

#7, unfunded liabilities; again, which is it?. It does too much or too little?

#8, single payer is a massive failure a la the VA.


OK, so, it is a gummint run program. Same as the military. Has pros and cons but what is not in dispute is that, like the military, only the gummint is big enough to do this. The VA works great for a LOT of people.

Many of the problems of Medicare are built in so that it helps promote private insurance. If we went all in with it, at least as the first line of care, basic care, for the vast majority of us, the warts would, clearly, get attention.

Next, keep in mind we're comparing it to not a free market system but a series of monopolies as well as the strongest union in the nation, doctors.

Lastly, compare it to the ACA.

Medicare is IN place, now, works fairly well and can rather easily be improved. And Candidate Trump promoted a version of this during the campaign.

 

[Gilligan]

#1, underpays doctors compared to insurance, is addressable. It can certainly be fixed, adjusted annually, modified, etc.

#2, well, complex set up codes. OK, so, isn't that addressable, too?

#3, waste, fraud and abuse. Ah, so it pays TOO much? Again, addressable.

#4, records access. Again, Addressable.

#5, fewer doctors taking it. Well, address the first 4 and, again, addressable.

#6, claim denying. Again , addressable.

#7, unfunded liabilities; again, which is it?. It does too much or too little?

#8, single payer is a massive failure a la the VA.

As you've so clearly pointed out, nothing could be easier and simpler to fix.

:sarcasmoff:

 

[Larry Gude]

As you've so clearly pointed out, nothing could be easier and simpler to fix.

:sarcasmoff:

I didn't say it would be easy. I'm taking the critiques issue by issue. As is, pre ACA, health care was 16% of the economy and climbing. Monopolies, pain in the ass. Now, it's 17%, and climbing.

Between what we had and the ACA, I'd take Medicare without a second thought. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

I didn't say it would be easy. I'm taking the critiques issue by issue. As is, pre ACA, health care was 16% of the economy and climbing. Monopolies, pain in the ass. Now, it's 17%, and climbing.

Between what we had and the ACA, I'd take Medicare without a second thought. :shrug:

1. Please provide the constitutional authority line that allows (or requires) the federal government to provide health insurance (not regulate it, provide it).

2. Remember that "provide for the general welfare of the United States" means US Government, not we, the people.

3. Whether Medicare/Medicaid are better than the ACA is arguable, as they are both horrible. However, is that really the criteria we're using for what we should do - whether or not another program works? That seems to be a common argument: Legalize drugs because, well, alcohol is legal....use Medicare/Medicaid for all, because the ACA sucks....declassify everything because some stuff shouldn't be classified.....kill babies because some might be born to moms who will keep them but not want them.....etc., etc.

 

[Hijinx]

What is coming is basically what Medicare is now for everyone.

It's rolling along like a big snowball going downhill and getting bigger all the time.
We will all pay through the nose and be a part of it whether we like it or not.

It's single payer--pay the government.
If you have stock in an insurance company sell it. A few might eke out an existence providing Concierge care to those who can afford it.

Both parties want this, and it's coming.
Is it Constitutional?? Probably not, but those voting for it won't care.

 

[Larry Gude]

1. Please provide the constitutional authority line that allows (or requires) the federal government to provide health insurance (not regulate it, provide it).

2. Remember that "provide for the general welfare of the United States" means US Government, not we, the people.

3. Whether Medicare/Medicaid are better than the ACA is arguable, as they are both horrible. However, is that really the criteria we're using for what we should do - whether or not another program works? That seems to be a common argument: Legalize drugs because, well, alcohol is legal....use Medicare/Medicaid for all, because the ACA sucks....declassify everything because some stuff shouldn't be classified.....kill babies because some might be born to moms who will keep them but not want them.....etc., etc.

Same one that allowed congress to get around voting yea or nay on the Iraq war. Call it the Health Care Resolution whereby the president can do whatever the #### he likes and the congress can jump on board for some credit if things go well ("I help approve THIS!) and bail like they're on the Titanic otherwise ( I never voted for THIS!!!).

 

[Larry Gude]

What is coming is basically what Medicare is now for everyone.

It's rolling along like a big snowball going downhill and getting bigger all the time.
We will all pay through the nose and be a part of it whether we like it or not.

It's single payer--pay the government.
If you have stock in an insurance company sell it. A few might eke out an existence providing Concierge care to those who can afford it.

Both parties want this, and it's coming.
Is it Constitutional?? Probably not, but those voting for it won't care.

Given what we had, untenable monopolies that most HAD to get coverage through an employer because they'd never be able to afford it on their own while being tied to companies OR do we want the ACA? Given those two realities, is Medicare perhaps a good enough option? Each election cycle, the GOP can jump up and down to elect them so the can pretend to cut abortion or pretend to cut something else and every other cycle, the D's can promise to expand it for 4th and 5th genders if the GOP doesn't expand it enough?

 

[This_person]

Same one that allowed congress to get around voting yea or nay on the Iraq war. Call it the Health Care Resolution whereby the president can do whatever the #### he likes and the congress can jump on board for some credit if things go well ("I help approve THIS!) and bail like they're on the Titanic otherwise ( I never voted for THIS!!!).

I take it by your evasive, "we didn't do that, but if we did your guy did it first" answer that you know there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to take on health care insurance as something it should involve itself in.

So, knowing that, why not try and champion fixing the problem (government involvement) instead of the proposed solution (more government involvement)?

 

[This_person]

Given what we had, untenable monopolies that most HAD to get coverage through an employer because they'd never be able to afford it on their own while being tied to companies OR do we want the ACA? Given those two realities, is Medicare perhaps a good enough option?

You say there are only two options, then ask if a third option is "good enough". Why not actually propose an actually-good option, instead of a bad "good enough, 'cuz it's not as bad as other ones suggested" option?

 

[Larry Gude]

You say there are only two options, then ask if a third option is "good enough". Why not actually propose an actually-good option, instead of a bad "good enough, 'cuz it's not as bad as other ones suggested" option?

History. Name a few good choices we, as a nation, have made in the last, what, 30 years or so.

 

[This_person]

History. Name a few good choices we, as a nation, have made in the last, what, 30 years or so.

Define "good".

If you mean, "those that significantly decrease government involvement", I would have to concede there were none. That doesn't mean that none can be made though.

 

[This_person]

[W]hy not try and champion fixing the problem (government involvement) instead of the proposed solution (more government involvement)?

This was a real question.