DescentBB

...or, so he said, yesterday. He wishes it to be 'phased out'. Why on EARTH would one wish to eliminate the one healthcare insurance system in the US that works well for about 50 million people? Oh, yes, to give more money to the insurance companies. As someone who has shepharded two elderly family members through the process of getting supplemental insurance, I can't imagine the disruption, confusion and outright ripoffs that senior citizens would be subjected to under Jeb's(and the Koch's by the way, who he was pitching to appeal to) version of reality.

He's just pandering, and he say say it all he wants because it will never come true and he knows it. it's not really worth spending time on that statement because this is not an issue that will drive the general election.

vision wrote:He's just pandering, and he say say it all he wants because it will never come true and he knows it. it's not really worth spending time on that statement because this is not an issue that will drive the general election.

yes and no. In my view, this coming election is, at the core, about the role of government. One camp, and it seems to be holding strong to the point across all candidates, claims that government ought not be involved with medical care, unemployment insurance, housing or other subsidies, education or much of anything but defense and minimal infrastructure upkeep(emphasize minimal). The other camp believes that the Federal government is bound by the Constitution to work for the general welfare of the public, and thus ought to be rather expansive in that role. For 3 decades, the nation has been split over those choices, those models of government. 2016 is the year when the matter must be settled, because if we dither forward doing nothing, as has been the case for a decade or more, at least, we risk having the rest of the world pass us by. Our nation is crumbling, issues abound, but if we can't agree on how to address those issues(at what level of government), we won't progress at the pace of others.

It could happen. Congress is already reducing Social Security Disability benefits just by sitting on their butts or being obstructionist and not getting funding to the program. Death by neglect.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-soc ... story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ew-action/

callmeslick wrote:2016 is the year when the matter must be settled...Our nation is crumbling...

I think you are exaggerating a bit. The country regularly swings left-right-left-right like a pendulum over the course of decades. It's due to swing left again, based on previous models. I certainly wouldn't use the word "crumbling" to describe the USA, but indeed we will continue to slip further behind in some key areas. Keep in mind, we are still churning out some of the best medicine and technology the world uses and it doesn't appear anyone is close to taking us over (yet). I wouldn't say this election is pivotal any more than the last one. In fact, it's shaping up to be rather boring. It's not the President who is the problem in this country, it's the Legislative Branch.

I would like to know where the money a employee pays into Medicare and with it where did the matching employer funds go? Over 40 years that adds up to a fair amount of change. Yet when you are eligible for Medicare you still have to pay a monthly fee. So if the RHINO Jeb wants to dissolve Medicare does that mean the Medicare deduction from your paycheck will disappear?

by 'crumbling' I may have been exaggerating, but just a bit. Our electrical grid, our energy sources, and mainly the cohesiveness of our society are in dreadful shape, likewise, roads, bridges and other infrastructure have real issues. Still, I think the Presidential race is potentially a watershed, but ONLY if it yields a more unifying moment, sending the obstructionists packing. That requires a candidate with long coat-tails.

woodchip wrote:I would like to know where the money a employee pays into Medicare and with it where did the matching employer funds go? Over 40 years that adds up to a fair amount of change.

Probably pissed away on all the wars and weapons you idiots always want.

More seriously, at least with private insurance companies you know where the money goes; straight into the wallets of the top 0.01%.

typical overhead of Medicare is around 3%. For private insurers it is around 20%. No real need to know more about the matter.

callmeslick wrote:typical overhead of Medicare is around 3%. For private insurers it is around 20%. No real need to know more about the matter.

Is that counting the billions in fraud? As to your no more need to know:

"According to a study in Health Affairs, “Ironically, Medicare’s low administrative costs — about 3 percent compared with 17 percent in the private sector — may be to blame for the high spending. The private sector uses these funds to do a better job controlling excessive use. Tomas Philipson and colleagues have shown that the variation in Medicare hospital use is four times larger than the private sector when it comes to heart disease. Because it can rely on its monopoly power to control overall spending, Medicare has a weaker incentive to limit overuse. Meanwhile private insurers have become more efficient, employing tools such as utilization review and case management (which count as administrative costs) to assess patient needs and then either restrict services or steer patients towards more cost-effective care. In a world without private insurance, we would likely see more money wasted on care that produces no benefit for patients.”

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2014/01/03/ ... GxnRH.dpuf

callmeslick wrote:typical overhead of Medicare is around 3%. For private insurers it is around 20%. No real need to know more about the matter.

Except that insurance company overheads are a drop in the bucket compared to the inflated costs of care itself.

And yes, I will keep pounding this dead horse, until someone finally figures it out.

I doubt the government can change the culture of the medical industry if it became the single payer, just look at the military for your example of how frugal the government is, and how much incentive there is to cut costs.

Single payer will reduce costs, but not by any substantial amount, because it will still be paying those over inflated prices.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:typical overhead of Medicare is around 3%. For private insurers it is around 20%. No real need to know more about the matter.

Except that insurance company overheads are a drop in the bucket compared to the inflated costs of care itself.

maybe not a drop in the bucket, but yes, costs rise. Somewhat due to our system of compensation, somewhat due to the cost of ongoing medical progress(research and instrumentation cost real money).

Single payer will reduce costs, but not by any substantial amount, because it will still be paying those over inflated prices.

no, it won't. Because with single payer, you have very little negotiating room. As it stands now, if Anthem doesn't wish to pay your costs, you drop them from the hospitals approved provider list. With only one provider, that is economic suicide. Medicare rates of reimbursement, at least in the laboratory business in which I worked, are WELL below what private insurers contract for.

Yeah, lets have a single payer like the VA system. Ask the vets how well that is working.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, lets have a single payer like the VA system. Ask the vets how well that is working.

the VA is a standalone healthcare system, underfunded, badly staffed and with obsolete equipment in many cases. No comparison whatsoever can be made between the VA and Medicare, or any other single payer system. No one is proposing creating a national health system with all labs, doctors and other professionals as federal employees. Why would you make such a comparison?

callmeslick wrote: Why would you make such a comparison?

Because that is how the govt works. Starts out with idealism and ends up with special interest, cronyism and piss poor managers in charge.

I’m pretty sure Medicare has the power to pay less for care at this point, because it’s not the only game in town, change that dynamic and all bets are off.

callmeslick wrote:...ONLY if it yields a more unifying moment, sending the obstructionists packing. That requires a candidate with long coat-tails.

Ok I'll buy that. I think you and I both agree that the danger in America isn't and overabundance of Liberals or Conservatives, but rather a lack of Moderates, those rare politicians who have a better understanding of our political system (as corrupt as it is).

and to clarify, vision: There is no lack of Moderates in the POPULACE. Only in the political class, and that can trace directly back to the growing primacy of selecting candidates by primary elections, with around 25% turnout. Those tend to be won by the side that has the most rabid supporters willing to march en masse to the polls. Those are most often the most extreme position based candidates. Given most 'moderates' are folks trying to live their lives, largely apolitically if possible, they get overwhelmed at the stage when candidates are selected for general elections and the whole mess just unravels from there. Someone, some year, has to whip those apolitical souls into a suitable frenzy to overcome the crazies, or we are doomed to extremes and swings between those extremes, which is no way to run a nation, once the extremes get too much. As an aside, a glance at where the US falls, relative to the Western world, our swing cycles have moved us steadily to the right over the past 30 years. THAT is what needs a correction cycle, and you might well be right that it is coming.