Applying innocent until proven guilty doesn't involve an assumption. Perhaps you should look up the word UNTIL.
Medicare For All a fiscal winner
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Applying innocent until proven guilty doesn't involve an assumption. Perhaps you should look up the word UNTIL.
floridafan
Verified User
There you go again making baseless claims. You're the one determining guilt before any inquiry has taken place. I'm applying innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
floridafan
Verified User
Unlike tax cuts, M4A doesn't expand the deficit or debt.
Also, the tax cut from 2017 was to a rate that is still above many of the countries that are providing "competition".
So all the corporate tax cut of 2017 did was make companies richer and expand the deficit...it didn't make them any more competitive, and we see that in the pathetic market growth over the last 21 months.
DJIA 1/2/18: 24,824.01
DJIA 10/8/19: 26,292.94
+1,468.93
+5.9%
Still 6500 higher than when you black boy left office.
The other thing about M4A is that it allows the patient choice.
Right now, your choice of doctor is limited to those in your provider network.
M4A eliminates provider networks, which frees you up to see any doctor you want. It also forces doctors to compete for your care by improving outcomes. You might think your doctor is good, but how do you know? You can't competitively shop for health care in our current system. You can only shop competitively for insurance.
M4A also gives patients collective bargaining power to negotiate for cheaper fees and drugs. Right now, Medicare is barred from using its leverage as the largest payor in the market to bargain for cheaper drugs.
Right now, your choice of doctor is limited to those in your provider network.
M4A eliminates provider networks, which frees you up to see any doctor you want. It also forces doctors to compete for your care by improving outcomes. You might think your doctor is good, but how do you know? You can't competitively shop for health care in our current system. You can only shop competitively for insurance.
M4A also gives patients collective bargaining power to negotiate for cheaper fees and drugs. Right now, Medicare is barred from using its leverage as the largest payor in the market to bargain for cheaper drugs.
Then what makes you think assuming their health insurance costs of businesses will help? Just corporate welfare.
Previous attempt to measure performance outcomes resulted in doctors not accepting the most risky patients.
I can go outside my network.
Which is the industry logic for Medicare. The old are the most expensive to care for and we knew the Health insurance companies would find ways to not cover them. We had to find a way. So Medicare was invented.
For-profit health companies will find a way to get rid of those who need the most care. They always do. They will cap the lifetime amount too leaving the horribly sick or injured without care.
Again, the businesses are still assuming the cost...they're just not paying as much because there's no insurance company anymore.
What do you think the 7.5% tax on business income is, if not businesses assuming the cost of health care via a tax instead of paying for each worker's individual coverage?
Actually, the ACA accomplished this by having Medicare refuse to reimburse providers for health care that was necessary once the patient was already in the provider's care.
What that means is that pre-ACA, if you went in to have a hip replacement and ended up developing a Staph infection while in recovery, Medicare/Medicaid would have covered the cost of the hip replacement and the treatment of the Staph infection. Post-ACA, Medicare/Medicaid won't reimburse the provider for the Staph infection treatment. This has led to higher outcomes for Medicare and Medicaid overall since 2010, according to KFF and the Commonwealth fund:
Studies show improved self-reported health following expansion and an association between expansion and certain positive health outcomes.
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-...indings-from-a-literature-review-august-2019/
The Affordable Care Act's Payment and Delivery System Reforms: A Progress Report at Five Years
Re-Admission Rates
Yeah, we can trust the SOCIALIST , PP PR FIRM, LEFTIST PROPAGANDISTS at KAISER TO GIVE US THE ACTUAL FACTS....
You're fucked up.
Medicare did not stop that problem:
"The number of doctors not accepting Medicare has more than doubled since 2009. Some 9,539 doctors dropped out of Medicare practice in 2012. That’s risen dramatically from 3,700 in 2009."
According to KFF, in 2015, the physician acceptance rate for Medicare was 93%; for private insurance, it was 94%.
For new patient acceptance, Medicare was at 72% and private insurance was at 80%...so not much of a difference there.
Only 2% of physicians don't accept Medicare at all vs. 4% who do not accept any private insurance.
The point was that the percentage not taking Medicare or Medicaid is increasing. Private insurance companies pay a much higher reimbursement rate and the low rate paid by Medicare/Medicaid leads to doctors taking as many patients and performing as many procedures as possible.
One reason other nations spend less on healthcare is that they limit how much is spent each year while Medicare/Medicaid spend as much as required to treat all those who are eligible.
No, the actual point is that the percentage with no health insurance at all is increasing.
Yeah, why do they do that? It's not any benevolent reason. The reason they pay higher rates is because those rates ensure that both the provider and the insurer make a profit. The two collude with one another in the chargemaster to set the price for everything related to health care. Those prices are set with the goal of maximizing profit, not outcomes. So while they might reimburse at a higher rate, that's because the reimbursement amount is high and the result of collusion and price fixing between an insurance company and a doctor.
Do you...do you think there's such a thing as market pricing in health care? There isn't.
So...you don't want doctors to treat patients?
Do they limit how much is spent each year, or are their health care systems focused on outcomes instead of volume?