Medicare for All....'You still gotta pay for it?'

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

This is one of the funniest interviews I believe I have seen. One respondent asks 'You still gotta pay for it?'. However, it does illustrate the lack of knowledge that some people have when it comes to Medicare for all.

Most people are grossly ignorant of health care economics. I didn't watch the entire video. Did the interviewer point out that though taxes will increase, no one will have to pay a separate insurance premium? And if a Medicare-for-all type plan is properly structured, the total cost should be less than what is now paid in taxes and insurance premiums.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,937
Baltimore
✟551,753.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

This is one of the funniest interviews I believe I have seen. One respondent asks 'You still gotta pay for it?'. However, it does illustrate the lack of knowledge that some people have when it comes to Medicare for All.....

Taking at face value funny/gotcha man-on-the-street interviews, particularly those published by biased organizations like CampusReform, illustrate the lack of knowledge that some people have when it comes to video editing.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,026.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
And if a Medicare-for-all type plan is properly structured, the total cost should be less than what is now paid in taxes and insurance premiums.
No one has been able to demonstrate any such at this point....and given the politicians, and government in general, proclivities for consistent and dramatic understating of costs while proclaiming just as consistent and dramatic overstating of savings and benefits....I sincerely doubt what you claim....
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No one has been able to demonstrate any such at this point....and given the politicians, and government in general, proclivities for consistent and dramatic understating of costs while proclaiming just as consistent and dramatic overstating of savings and benefits....I sincerely doubt what you claim....

You're entitled to your opinion. But single-payer insurance has the ability to keep medical costs in check. When there's only one buyer for a product, all the sellers will compete for its business. That's the power of a monopsony. I always hear conservatives say they want to lower costs by encouraging competition in health care. This is the way to do it. You want the sellers of health care--who are hospitals, and providers, and drug and medical device manufacturers competing to sell their services and products. What about this doesn't make sense?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You're entitled to your opinion. But single-payer insurance has the ability to keep medical costs in check.
That's the theory, but everywhere it's been tried, the system has been forced to limit services, has gone broke, or is in process of going broke.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,026.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
When there's only one buyer for a product, all the sellers will compete for its business.
They are not buyers, they are sellers of insurance and a single insurance entity will determine the reimbursement adequate or not....and if the providers don't like the reimbursement...oh well, no private insurance to fall back on...can't make the patient pay out of pocket....the result means cut corners where ever possible....small hospitals in smaller communities close further reducing the availability of emergency and hospital care and even physicians since most specialties depend on nearby facilities for admitting privileges.
Think of auto or home or life insurance....if you don't like the rate/service at one you go to another. One health insurance provider....you don't like them?....tough luck cuz there is no one else to go to.....
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
That's the theory, but everywhere it's been tried, the system has been forced to limit services, has gone broke, or is in process of going broke.
What system provides the typical consumer with unlimited services? Certainly not the free market system?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
They are not buyers, they are sellers of insurance and a single insurance entity will determine the reimbursement adequate or not....and if the providers don't like the reimbursement...oh well, no private insurance to fall back on...can't make the patient pay out of pocket....the result means cut corners where ever possible....small hospitals in smaller communities close further reducing the availability of emergency and hospital care and even physicians since most specialties depend on nearby facilities for admitting privileges.
Think of auto or home or life insurance....if you don't like the rate/service at one you go to another. One health insurance provider....you don't like them?....tough luck cuz there is no one else to go to.....

But don't you get it? The fundamental problem isn't the cost of insurance. It's medical costs that we want to lower. Then insurance costs will follow.

And this is taken from my earlier post, with an important point emphasized:

And if a Medicare-for-all type plan is properly structured, the total cost should be less than what is now paid in taxes and insurance premiums.

A rational single-payer plan must negotiate fees that are fair and reasonable. I stated this in an earlier thread. If you stiff providers, you will lose them (which is a problem with Medicaid plans in some states.) Medicare already negotiates fees. There is no shortage of Medicare providers where I live. And I don't know of any major hospital in my area that doesn't accept Medicare assignment.

Quality medical care has a cost. It won't ever be cheap. But costs can be kept reasonable by a sensible single payer insurance system.

How would you lower the cost of medical care?

BTW: I'd love to hear something besides the old shuck and jive about malpractice reform. Studies have shown medical liability accounts for maybe 2% of overall health care costs. And anyway, tort reform can only be addressed by each state individually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What were you saying about systems that limit services?
I said that the system inevitably limits (reduces) services, delays them, raises costs, etc. as it runs into trouble. I did not say that "unlimited services" are the starting point.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I said that the system inevitably cuts services, delays them, raises costs, etc. as it runs into trouble. I did not say that "unlimited services" are the starting point.
No. You said single payer systems "limit services".

I appreciate that what you meant was something more refined. But dont blame me for responding to what you said. Im not a mind reader.

Every system is constantly finding a balance between what it can provide and what that costs. But...generally, country to country comparisons indicate better health outcomes at less cost overall for single payer systems.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But...generally, country to country comparisons indicate better health outcomes at less cost overall for single payer systems.

Not really. Which is why many countries combine public and private healthcare.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Not really. Which is why many countries combine public and private healthcare.
Yes really.

And I'm fine with private supplemental insurance to cover whatever the "death panels" rule out as too expensive.

Sure. The rich will live and the poor will die, but to a lesser extent that currently. I mean, private OR public, the system cant provide everyone with unlimited value. Perfection is not the goal here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,026.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
But don't you get it? The fundamental problem isn't the cost of insurance. It's medical costs that we want to lower. Then insurance costs will follow.

And this is taken from my earlier post, with an important point emphasized:



A rational single-payer plan must negotiate fees that are fair and reasonable. I stated this in an earlier thread. If you stiff providers, you will lose them (which is a problem with Medicaid plans in some states.) Medicare already negotiates fees. There is no shortage of Medicare providers where I live. And I don't know of any major hospital in my area that doesn't accept Medicare assignment.

Quality medical care has a cost. It won't ever be cheap. But costs can be kept reasonable by a sensible single payer insurance system.

How would you lower the cost of medical care?

BTW: I'd love to hear something besides the old shuck and jive about malpractice reform. Studies have shown medical liability accounts for maybe 2% of overall health care costs. And anyway, tort reform can only be addressed by each state individually.
So, what do you want to give up?....Mri's/CT's?...almost everyone who goes to the hospital with headache/dizziness/etc gets one. Why?....The docs don't want that person to leave and 2 days later drop from a CVA...doesn't look good. Wanna give up bi-ventricular pacing defibrillators? To the heart failure patient that is $35,000 (device only 10years ago) well spent. Maybe that 80yo really doesn't need that hip replacement; after all the remaining life expectancy may not justify the cost, right? Thing is, you may be OK with those things until it is you or your family....then....eh, not so much. Rationing is simply a result of socialized medicine. Too many patients and not enough resources.
Your comment: And if a Medicare-for-all type plan is properly structured, the total cost should be less than what is now paid in taxes and insurance premiums.
You remember the old definition of a camel, right: It is a horse designed by committee. What committee do want designing your medical care.
I could go on with this stuff for pages but I think you begin to get the idea.......
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So, what do you want to give up?....Mri's/CT's?...almost everyone who goes to the hospital with headache/dizziness/etc gets one. Why?....The docs don't want that person to leave and 2 days later drop from a CVA...doesn't look good. Wanna give up bi-ventricular pacing defibrillators? To the heart failure patient that is $35,000 (device only 10years ago) well spent. Maybe that 80yo really doesn't need that hip replacement; after all the remaining life expectancy may not justify the cost, right? Thing is, you may be OK with those things until it is you or your family....then....eh, not so much. Rationing is simply a result of socialized medicine. Too many patients and not enough resources.
Your comment: And if a Medicare-for-all type plan is properly structured, the total cost should be less than what is now paid in taxes and insurance premiums.
You remember the old definition of a camel, right: It is a horse designed by committee. What committee do want designing your medical care.
I could go on with this stuff for pages but I think you begin to get the idea.......

Why would you think these items will be rationed? Medicare covers CTs, and MRIs, and pacemakers, and implantable defibrillators for beneficiaries. If anything, it's private insurance that balks at paying for high tech interventions. True story: My niece, at 8 years old, was about 40" tall. Which is well below the 5th percentile for a girl. Average is around 51". She had the appropriate testing done, and met the criteria for growth hormone deficiency. HGH was fairly new on the market, and quite expensive. It took about 9 months, and the involvement of my sister and brother-in-law's congressman to get his employer-provided health insurance to cover her treatment. She's 37 now, and about 5'2". Still short, but she's tall enough to drive a car, and have a normal life. Which would have been nearly impossible if the insurance company had their way.

As I've said, a properly structured single-payer plan will cover all necessary treatments, just as Medicare does now. The difference is it can get better prices than other insurance can.
 
Upvote 0