« prev   random   next »

5
2

Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 TRILLION, yes TRILLION.

By MrMagic following x   2018 Jul 30, 7:51am 644 views   75 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.

Sanders' plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services.

"Enacting something like 'Medicare for all' would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government," said Charles Blahous, the study's author.

Sanders' office has not done a cost analysis, a spokesman said. (Ahhhh, typical politician, promise something without having ANY clue of the costs)



Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of those studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.

"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums."

After taking into account current government health care financing, the study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs. (Crap, there goes the narrative that you can just tax the "rich" to pay for it.......)

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-medicare-bill-estimated-326-trillion-56906940

« First    « Previous    Comments 36 - 75 of 75    Last »

36   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 12:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
This is someone that doesn't understand the basics


Exactly... but it doesn't stop Bernie from going out there and make himself look like a total ass, does it?
37   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 12:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
If anything, the $3.8T number is probably way too low.


Wow, finally waking up to Bernie's total delusions?

When you add in the 30 million uninsured, give FREE healthcare to all the people on Bronze plans, give FREE healthcare to everyone else who has other high deductible, high copay plans or limited doctors in network plans, the price will probably double that.

Ever watch people eat at a FREE buffet line?
38   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 12:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
"Medicare for all" provides a huge tool to limit costs: single payer sets the price.

I'll say it again: the government is a bigger cartel than the healthcare industry.


No it doesn't mean that. Medicare is so so at best not all that efficient or cost effective. It doesn't do anything about the inherent conflict of interest of fee for service where the more you do the more you get paid, It doesn't do anything about bringing down the huge cost and labor of billing. It isn't very good at fraud.

A system with capitation for primary and employed specialists would be much better. No billing costs at all, no incentive for over treatment. This is called the Beveridge model wihich is used in Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia, New Zealand. and Hong Kong. Very similar to the VA actually. Which despite the incessant whining of the slavish devotees to the free market works well. Not perfectly, but well.
39   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 12:59pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
MrMagic says

So, Sarah Palin was right all along about Government run healthcare and Death Panels:


Nope--Sarah was wrong, of course. If you're looking to Palin for wisdom and education, then you're in deep trouble.


There is going to be "Death Panels" regardless of system. For example, more hearts needed than hearts available for transplant. Some sort of decision making body will do the triage. Those turned down for transplant will die. You can call this deciding body "Life Panel" if it makes you feel better, but that panel still decides who will die from lack of treatment.
40   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 1:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Every other government in the world has found a way to do it. Do you think Americans are dumber than citizens in every other 1st world county?


Like Canada, is this a better model?


41   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 1:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

MrMagic says
Ever watch people eat at a FREE buffet line?


After all people all over the world that have FREE health care wake up every morning and rush down to their doctors because it's FREE Could i have a FREE colonoscopy twice today? ,please please. How about another FREE hemorrhoid surgery then?
42   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 1:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Today doctors set the price as they see fit. In a single payer system, the government sets a reasonable price as they see fit.


I see you don't know much about how Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies bill, do you.

All insurance companies have "allowables" for all the major treatment they cover. Do you really think a doctor can submit a bill for a basic exam for a million dollars and get paid that amount from the insurance company?
43   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 1:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Speaking of that great Socialist, single payer system Canada has, that the Democrats think we should copy......

63,000 Canadians left the country for medical treatment last year.

A new report from the Fraser Institute estimates that more than 63,000 Canadians travelled abroad for medical care in 2016.

The think-tank says that's a nearly 40-per-cent increase over the previous year, and may be related to long wait times for medical procedures in Canada.

The institute asked the specialists to approximate the percentage of their patients who received non-emergency treatment outside of Canada in the previous 12 months. Based on that data, the institute estimates that 63,459 Canadians left the country for non-urgent medical care in 2016.

"If that many Canadians are willing to pay out of pocket to get faster access to the treatment they need, that means they are dissatisfied with the quality of care," said Yanick Labrie, a senior Fraser Institute fellow and one of the authors of the report.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/63-000-canadians-left-the-country-for-medical-treatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635
44   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 1:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Oops, here are those Death Panels associated with Socialized healthcare...

Trent Hills Mayor Hector Macmillan was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in January 2016, and hoped to undergo a NanoKnife procedure in the U.S. an operation that would use electrodes to jolt his tumour and kill cancer cells.

But when the Ontario Health Insurance Program denied Macmillan's request for funding for the procedure in the U.S., he went to Germany for treatment.

"Our health care system is certainly broken, there is no doubt about that," Macmillan told CTV News. "I think it's time for a total overhaul."

Macmillan said he's "delighted because I am here." His Canadian doctors had told him that he would likely be dead by Christmas 2016.

"I have long surpassed the expiry date that I was given in Ontario and it has given me a chance to help other Canadians," he said.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/63-000-canadians-left-the-country-for-medical-treatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

But, but, but.... it's more affordable yells the Democrats.... unless you're the one on the receiving end of those "Death Panel" decisions...
45   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 30, 1:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

MrMagic says

Wow, finally waking up to Bernie's total delusions?

When you add in the 30 million uninsured, give FREE healthcare to all the people on Bronze plans, give FREE healthcare to everyone else who has other high deductible, high copay plans or limited doctors in network plans, the price will probably double that.

Ever watch people eat at a FREE buffet line?


No--you aren't paying attention. The $3.8T number is what we pay NOW under the current system. It's MORE than what we'd pay under Medicare for all.
46   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 30, 1:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrMagic says
Speaking of that great Socialist, single payer system Canada has, that the Democrats think we should copy......



Can you please source one Dem who says we should copy Canada's system?

All strawman arguments, all the time.
47   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 1:44pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
The $3.8T number is what we pay NOW under the current system.


That's what I said, please pay attention. We pay more than Bernie's plan that now, with tons of treatment excluded (which I posted above), but some how you and Bernie think healthcare can be delivered for FREE to 320 million people for less money. Delusional much?

LeonDurham says
Can you please source one Dem who says we should copy Canada's system?


That would be LeonDurham/Tatty/Joey

So NOW you're saying Canada's Socialist system of healthcare isn't good, once the FACTS prove Bernie wrong??

Man, some just can't keep their hyperbole straight.
48   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 30, 2:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

MrMagic says

That's what I said, please pay attention. We pay more than Bernie's plan that now, with tons of treatment excluded (which I posted above), but some how you and Bernie think healthcare can be delivered for FREE to 320 million people for less money. Delusional much?


Because we'd spend much LESS per person. That's the point. It would be money saver.
49   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 30, 2:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrMagic says
hat would be LeonDurham/Tatty/Joey

So NOW you're saying Canada's Socialist system of healthcare isn't good, once the FACTS prove Bernie wrong??

Man, some just can't keep their hyperbole straight.


OK great--please provide the exact quote or link to where I said we should copy Canada's system.
50   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 30, 2:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I have a 78 year old client who lives in a 500/month apt, but goes to kidney dialysis 3 times per week for $3000 each visit, 100% paid for by medicaid.

You tell me who's getting rich here.
51   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 3:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
I have a 78 year old client who lives in a 500/month apt, but goes to kidney dialysis 3 times per week for $3000 each visit, 100% paid for by medicaid.

You tell me who's getting rich here.


Better yet, tell me who's actually paying that $9000 bill each week. Hint, it's not the guy on dialysis, and it ain't Bernie either.
52   jvolstad   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 30, 4:40pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I just got my free semi-annual eye exam on base this afternoon. Want free medical care? Serve in the military for 20 years or longer.
53   Rin   ignore (4)   2018 Jul 30, 5:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrMagic says
CBOEtrader says
I have a 78 year old client who lives in a 500/month apt, but goes to kidney dialysis 3 times per week for $3000 each visit, 100% paid for by medicaid.

You tell me who's getting rich here.


Better yet, tell me who's actually paying that $9000 bill each week. Hint, it's not the guy on dialysis, and it ain't Bernie either.


A postdoc, yes, a PhD in the biomedical sciences, earns some $42K/yr. He can perform that dialysis at ~$800/week (or $266 per treatment) and pay for his annual research budget.

Seriously, why are these educated ppl's talents being wasted? This industry is a huge racket.
54   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 5:38pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

They haven't invented a money printing press with the capacity to fund Bernie's programs.
55   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 6:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
MrMagic says

That's what I said, please pay attention. We pay more than Bernie's plan that now, with tons of treatment excluded (which I posted above), but some how you and Bernie think healthcare can be delivered for FREE to 320 million people for less money. Delusional much?


Because we'd spend much LESS per person. That's the point. It would be money saver.


Less per person... next thing you'll say is they'll make it up in volume...

You're missing the point, Bernie's plan will be paid out of tax collections, the top 20% in the country pay 90% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually nothing in taxes. So in true Liberal fashion, the top 20% will be paying for the health care of the majority of the population. Also, since the bottom feeders have no skin in the game, they'll be the first ones to abuse the system, with all the FREE healthcare.

Great system, right?
56   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 30, 7:46pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Do you think Americans are dumber than citizens in every other 1st world county?


Better question: Do you think American govt. officials are more corrupt than govt. officials in every other 1st world country?
57   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 8:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Rin says
Better yet, tell me who's actually paying that $9000 bill each week. Hint, it's not the guy on dialysis, and it ain't Bernie either.


A postdoc, yes, a PhD in the biomedical sciences, earns some $42K/yr. He can perform that dialysis at ~$800/week (or $266 per treatment) and pay for his annual research budget.


That wasn't the question, I didn't ask which actual person would do the dialysis, I asked who'd funding the $9000 Medicaid payments?
58   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 30, 8:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrMagic says
Also, since the bottom feeders have no skin in the game, they'll be the first ones to abuse the system, with all the FREE healthcare.


59   PrivilegedtobeWhite   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 9:39pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Single payer crap drives me nuts. To improve things in healthcare, it requires a bunch of different things such as the following:
- STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
- Implement the individual mandate (sorry Right wingers, it has to be done). However, revamp the qualified plans to not be so broad like what was defined in ACA.
- Tort reform to fend off ambulance chasers
- Require full transparency of prices on the Internet for all procedures, medications and services
- Remove barriers of health plans to provide insurance across state lines
- If you are on gov't subsidized health care (medicare or medicaid), you get 70s-level care. No fancy new drugs, no fancy procedures, etc. You get what you get if you don't pay for it.
60   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 30, 9:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrMagic says
Better yet, tell me who's actually paying that $9000 bill each week.


Medicaid but it may be in partnership w his 3rd party Medicare advantage plan. I'm not completely sure how they break up the bill's, but the client pays nothing.

Still tho, $9000 of weekly medical Bill's when he lives in a $500 apartment? Someone is getting rich.

I get $250/year to place him into his Medicare plan.
61   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 10:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
I have a 78 year old client who lives in a 500/month apt, but goes to kidney dialysis 3 times per week for $3000 each visit, 100% paid for by medicaid.

You tell me who's getting rich here.


You should be calling the fraud hot line immediately. What is the name of the center?

Med-cal rate for reimbursement of dialysis code Z6004 is 141.31 plus professional fees. Here is med-cal database of rates by code. https://files.medi-cal.ca.gov/pubsdoco/rates/rates_information.asp?num=26&first=V2301&last=Z9727

The base rate for medicare is 233.31. The base rate can be modified depending on many factors but only by a few percentage points. Here is the 2017 federal register for ESRD https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/05/2017-13908/medicare-program-end-stage-renal-disease-prospective-payment-system-payment-for-renal-dialysis
62   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 10:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrMagic says
You're missing the point, Bernie's plan will be paid out of tax collections, the top 20% in the country pay 90% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually nothing in taxes. So in true Liberal fashion, the top 20% will be paying for the health care of the majority of the population. Also, since the bottom feeders have no skin in the game, they'll be the first ones to abuse the system, will all the FREE healthcare.


The top 20% pay 90% of federal income taxes, not all taxes.

That would be like medicare A paid out of fica tax on every worker with a cut off of 100k? That kind of no skin in the game and the top 20% paying 90%? How many abusers do you suppose will be lining up for FREE colonoscopies every day if berniecare did pass?

Relax and untwist your panties. Nothing even close to Medicare for all is ever going to get past the health care oligarchs making huge profits and doling out huge campaign contributions.
63   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 30, 11:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Medicaid but it may be in partnership w his 3rd party Medicare advantage plan. I'm not completely sure how they break up the bill's, but the client pays nothing.


That doesn't make any sense. When people are dual qualified medicare is the primary and medicaid is limited to paying premiums, deductibles, and co pays not medical bills. Here are the guidelines from medicaid. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/integrating-care/cost-sharing-chart.pdf
64   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 31, 3:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
When people are dual qualified medicare is the primary and medicaid is limited to paying premiums, deductibles, and co pays not medical bills.


3rd party Medicare advantage carriers take over for original medicare in all SNP's. Considering these SNP's are designed for ESRD, and losses to provider are expected to be high, I assumed the cost sharing was negotiated but dont really know the details.
65   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 31, 3:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
You should be calling the fraud hot line immediately. What is the name of the center?


I'll ask him about this, but my client most likely just doenst know the costs. He told me it was $3000 per visit. Your numbers would put him closer to $3000/month. He probably just doesnt know considering he doesnt pay the bills.
66   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 31, 3:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
Nothing even close to Medicare for all is ever going to get past the health care oligarchs


From an oligarch perspective, why? Sounds like you work in healthcare. Answer this: who is getting rich off our system? Insurance companies are paying inflated rates with often no pre-ex clauses. Even doctors are getting squeezed. Is it your medical admin ilk running off w the bag? Have hospital operators gone from being philanthropists to billionaires?
67   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 31, 5:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
bob2356 says
When people are dual qualified medicare is the primary and medicaid is limited to paying premiums, deductibles, and co pays not medical bills.


3rd party Medicare advantage carriers take over for original medicare in all SNP's. Considering these SNP's are designed for ESRD, and losses to provider are expected to be high, I assumed the cost sharing was negotiated but dont really know the details.


I haven't read up on SNP's but I would think medicaid rules outlined in the medicaid guide lines would still apply. There aren't any exceptions listed.

CBOEtrader says
Your numbers would put him closer to $3000/month.


The most recent number's I've seen from medicare say about 60k a year ESRD. But that's for all ESRD care, not just the dialysis.
68   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 31, 7:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
From an oligarch perspective, why? Sounds like you work in healthcare. Answer this: who is getting rich off our system? Insurance companies are paying inflated rates with often no pre-ex clauses. Even doctors are getting squeezed. Is it your medical admin ilk running off w the bag? Have hospital operators gone from being philanthropists to billionaires?


I worked in health care, quite a while but on the IT side as in billing/office management but not currently. Then oddly enough doing international recruitment for 4 years in Australia/NZ. Not as a recruiter, but as a liaison. Which forced me to learn a hell of a lot about medical systems around the world since explaining the differences between health systems was a part of my job. Not medical procedures. Despite what the willfully ignorant believe the training, protocols, and procedures are the same pretty much everywhere. It's the administrative and cultures that is very different. It also lets me say bullshit to the crock that US doctors are paid a lot more then anywhere else. Simply not true. I also have 3 doctors in my immediate family that give me lots of insight into the medical field whether I want to hear it or not.

Insurers are limited by LTV under ACA, which trump will eventually do away with, but still have reasonable profits. Except medicare C where LTV doesn't apply. The problem is there is no incentive to keep prices down. The more they pay out the higher profits while keeping in LTV as long as rates can keep raising. The point would be that the entire 20% of costs in the LTV doesn't exist in public systems, its taxes collected which are already collected anyway. Plus the 80% that does go out isn't all for patient care by a long shot. The average hospital or doctor spends 20-25% of what they collect on operating the billing systems. so another 16% disappears Some public health systems do have billing, but its not anything like the US systems and requires very little money to operate. That's 36% of health care dollars right up front that disappears in the private insurance system and billing both private and public.

Hospitals haven't been philanthropic since the 60's. Then 95% or better of hospitals were community non profits. Now 95% are for profit. Hospitals don't have huge profit margins, but that's deceptive. There are many revenue streams in a hospital and there is more money being made than it looks like on paper. The numbers are at least 10-12% probably higher even though on paper profits for most hospitals are in the 6-7% range. That's another 10-12% out of the system that doesn't exist in public systems.

Pharma and medical devices are off the charts. Profits of 40% aren't unusual. Drugs are 15% of health care spending. Don't bother with the costs lots for research bs. Most basic research is public funded. Pharma spends more on lobbying and advertising (neither of which exist anywhere but the US, more dollars out of health care) than on research. A good deal of pharma research is for tweaking existing patents to get another 7 years on patent. Most public systems bargain for drugs in bulk or do real cost/benefit analysis to check if a new drug has enough benefit to be worth the cost. The only large entity in the US that could bargain for drugs is medicare and medicare is prohibited from doing so by medicare d rules. Big ROI on that lobbying money.

Fee for service. Built in huge conflict of interest. As is doctors owning facilities that they can refer to. Which also ties into defensive medicine. Very few doctors actively abuse fee for service, but no one can really seriously claim that it doesn't at least shade treatment decisions. The public systems that do use fee for service almost all have strict guidelines for care.

Duplication of services/facilties. Hospitals (even non profits), labs, imaging centers, etc. etc. are businesses Businesses need to market themselves. They market themselves by setting up special services. So you might have 3 nicu's or cardiac centers in a small geographic area all less than fully utilized competing bitterly for business. These duplications is paid out of operating costs, not profits so all the wasted money is never seen. Public systems do an evaluation of what services are needed and don[t have huge amounts of expensive duplication. Really big ticket items get regionalized. When I had a cardiac mapping and ablation done in NZ there is only 1 center that does it. The health care system paid for my airfare, lodging, meals, taxi, and even airport parking Hell of a lot cheaper than a building another cardiac mapping center. No I didn't wait years while death panels decided my fate. Even though I only had nuisance rhythms that I had all my life but getting worse and was in zero danger I was taken in less than a month. If there were danger ti would have been immediate.

End of life. Only 5% of patients eat up 50% of health care. Most of them are very close to dying. Call it death panels or whatever you want but spending large sums of money to extend the life of someone elderly and already terminal by a couple months is simply insane. This is both a societal problem and a health care system problem. Americans don't accept death. Most other places have a strong hospice system that places high value on quality of life while dying not eaking out a few additional (frequently totally miserable) months from a long life. The entire health care for profit/fee for service system benefits very well financially from extending dying.

Profits,profits,profits. Every single service, medicine, procedure, supply, etc. etc.no matter how small or large has a profit built into it. Frequently cascading. Profits on top of profits. Individually they may be small, but add enough of them together and the numbers are very large.

How Is that as a start on who's running off with the bag? Yea oligarchs. The CEO's and executives in the health industry as well as the large investors can only be described that way. They are making large financial decisions and driving lawmaking for their own benefit first.
69   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 31, 7:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
The top 20% pay 90% of federal income taxes,


bob2356 says
That would be like medicare A paid out of fica tax on every worker with a cut off of 100k?


Bob, do you know the difference between "income taxes" and "payroll taxes"? Bernie's plan is to hike "income taxes" to pay for it...

Geez, the ignorance...

bob2356 says
How many abusers do you suppose will be lining up for FREE colonoscopies every day if berniecare did pass?


So, colonoscopies are the only thing people see a doctor for? I didn't know that.... amazing stuff...
70   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 31, 7:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
When people are dual qualified medicare is the primary and medicaid is limited to paying premiums, deductibles, and co pays not medical bills.


Wrong again... seems to be a pattern here.

People can be Medicaid primary and Medicare secondary... please do some research and education.

CBOEtrader says
I'll ask him about this, but my client most likely just doenst know the costs. He told me it was $3000 per visit. Your numbers would put him closer to $3000/month. He probably just doesnt know considering he doesnt pay the bills.


Exactly, Bob is just pulling things out of his netherlands again. There's all types of associated costs and facility costs added on top of the actual dialysis HCPCS. Bob needs some remedial help.

bob2356 says
I haven't read up on SNP's


Maybe you should.

bob2356 says
The most recent number's I've seen from medicare say about 60k a year ESRD. But that's for all ESRD care, not just the dialysis.


Oh Boy........ missed it by 50%...

...."Hemodialysis treatment costs an average of $89,000 per patient annually in the United States. "
https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney/need/statistics

I don't believe that accounts for any of the SNF costs, transportation costs, or anything else they tack on, just because they can bill for it.
71   Aphroman   ignore (7)   2018 Jul 31, 8:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

End of life. Only 5% of patients eat up 50% of health care. Most of them are very close to dying. Call it death panels or whatever you want but spending large sums of money to extend the life of someone elderly and already terminal by a couple months is simply insane. This is both a societal problem and a health care system problem. Americans don't accept death. Most other places have a strong hospice system that places high value on quality of life while dying not eaking out a few additional (frequently totally miserable) months from a long life. The entire health care for profit/fee for service system benefits very well financially from extending dying.


This combined with the Standard American Diet and all the horrible inputs Americans consume that are a detriment to their health are the root of the problem. At this point, considering all the misinformation that has been engraved into the system, a Sugar Tax is probably the best solution to our problem.

As a Freedom loving American Capitalist, i simply want the right to not be bankrupted by such an inefficient and ineffective system. I know how to properly take care of myself so why do Trumpthuglicans demand i subsidize their horrible eating habits? The government is supposed to protect the individual from others causing harm
72   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 31, 8:55am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Aphroman says
End of life. Only 5% of patients eat up 50% of health care. Most of them are very close to dying. Call it death panels or whatever you want but spending large sums of money to extend the life of someone elderly and already terminal by a couple months is simply insane. This is both a societal problem and a health care system problem. Americans don't accept death. Most other places have a strong hospice system that places high value on quality of life while dying not eaking out a few additional (frequently totally miserable) months from a long life. The entire health care for profit/fee for service system benefits very well financially from extending dying.
My cousins in Big Spring haven't talked to me since I told them when they came in response to my mother's passing in 1997 at 94 that I declined the attempt to revive her by the EMT after her heart had stopped. She had already made a living will and did not want any heroic efforts to revive her--to what purpose anyway. I think it was because his own mother, who was my mother's favorite niece, was treated repeatedly even after her mental faculties were long gone and it drew out her dying over several agonizing months and expense and he resented the fact I wanted to avoid that. My neighbor went through the same thing. Already advanced into mental incompetence to care for herself, when she was finally put into managed care within six months she had to have everything done for her and knew nothing. She would have medical emergencies that if left alone would have let her pass on, but instead she would be rushed to ICU where the meter would start running for every aspirin and drop of IV fluid administered--her son told me one attempt was over $75K to no avail. This went on for two years before she simply passed away in her room. Even when my mother was living, they wanted a nice payday. She had a colonoscopy in 1994 when she was 92 that was negative. When she was 93, the doctor notified her to have another colonoscopy and I put my foot down and told her to refuse, which she did. I don't think they will even administer colonoscopies anymore to people over 80 unless they have obvious symptoms--it's just a way to get more money.
73   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (32)   2018 Jul 31, 9:55am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Unless doctors are FREE! to bill for billing for tests at testing facilities they own and operate so that they and their kids' and kids' kids' kids can live in CALIGULAN! SPLENDOR!, then FREEDOM! has no meaning.
75   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 7, 7:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Fake News Gets a Smack Down....

Democrats seize on cherry-picked claim that ‘Medicare-for-all’ would save $2 trillion.

“We know that Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all actually save this state and this nation $2 trillion if it were fully implemented.”
— Andrew Gillum, Democratic candidate for Florida governor, in a primary debate, Aug. 2, 2018

Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, was quoted in Weigel’s article as having touted, during a debate, a $2 trillion cost-savings figure that is in the report. Sanders, too, has tweeted about this $2 trillion number, sarcastically thanking the conservative Koch brothers, whose foundation has contributed to Mercatus.

That in theory would reduce the country’s overall level of health expenditures by $2 trillion from 2022 to 2031. But he makes clear that it’s a pretty unrealistic assumption.

In the fourth sentence of the report’s abstract, Blahous wrote, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

“To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number, one would have to argue that we can cut payments to providers by about 40 percent at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent,” Blahous said.

The Pinocchio Test

We don’t intend to pick on Gillum, who appears to have picked up a talking point that is circulating among Democrats. But we do want to lay down a marker because this goes too far.

All too often, politicians mischaracterize conclusions that are contained in academic or think tank studies. At the Fact Checker, we rely heavily on how a study’s author says the data should be presented. In this case, it’s clear that Blahous bent over backward to accept Sanders’s assumptions, only to find they did not add up. Democrats cannot seize on one cherry-picked fact without acknowledging the broader implications of Blahous’s research.

The verdict on the $2 Trillion Savings: Three Pinocchios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.f93f362766bd

« First    « Previous    Comments 36 - 75 of 75    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions