General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI wish we were getting access to health care not health insurance
Most of the rest of the civilized world gets to see doctors, we get to see insurers.
This isn't a Thank You or Fuck You to Obama. I'm not assigning blame but am just disappointed.
I know it's a godsend for some people, but for others it's another step between us and getting medical help.
I happen to be fortunate enough to live an hour away from a Mayo Clinic that has great treatment facilities and professionals for two of my diseases. I can't afford to go and they don't take Medicare (which I'll be eligible for in October). The doctor I currently see cannot even pronounce the name one of my diseases, but lumps it into the treatment of my lupus.
I'm just a hair brained wacko who thinks that thinks that there should be no profit in keeping me alive/treating my illnesses.
For some of us, it's not a debate but a reality that we deal with daily.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
rurallib
(62,423 posts)the rest to Dems and Obama who wouldn't fight.
It needs to be fixed and we know what that means - quit electing republicans and corporate Dems.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)and the fact is for most of this AHC act it was written by, for the most part ,former or current insurance lobbyists.
What we ended up was not even close to what Obama intended it to be. Insurance companies as you may recall spent millions,(remember all those commercials)So the way I see it,it gave President Obama bragging rights to say I got a health care bill passed. And oh yes it got coverage for preexisting
...When the Republican Teabagger Governors refused Federal funding to increase the Medicaid rolls this really hurt and I think it was unexpected by the Obama admin. The Rpukes message has sunk in and our counter messages has not.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)However, I think all politicans were/are on the insurance company payrolls.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)today its really difficult to tell the difference..
For the few that are truly progressives question may be" is/will private voter funding be enough to win against corporate odds? Speaking in terms of the office for President. I believe there are those that are corpracrats and spend most of their time trying to make us believe they are real Democrats.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Think of the FACT that it would not have passed if people could not say "that you could keep your plan if you liked it". The reason behind this is that a large percentage of people still get their insurance (partly) paid for via their employer. Many unions fought long and hard to keep that benefit from deteriorating - often at the expense of raises.
The country backed this and companies get tax breaks for their portion of the cost. This means that a company can offer a package containing salary and insurance that is worth more to the prospective employee than a package that would have the identical cost to the company containing just salary.
A large survey in 2008 (NYT reported) showed that over half the country favored passing a law that would provide insurance to all who did not have it. From the questions asked many with insurance voted for it knowing that it would raise their taxes. However, one concern that many with insurance had was that it could hurt what they had.
It is a no brainer that single payer is cheaper than the current system, but this ignores that many in the current system do not pay a high percent of the cost - their employer does. Many of these people might prefer the status quo for fear that overall they could end up in a worse position. It is this fear the Republicans have played on.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)the Republicrats. Insurance CO's could contribute thousands to their campaigns rather than pay for a 30sec ad when their talking heads get their phony points across on some CNN,or MSNBC or Meet the Press or whatever but they save money and the politicians have wiggle room funding against their next challenger.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)His former staff member wrote most of the act..
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)He will not be missed in the Senate even if his seat is taken by a Republican.
And I'm sorry Mr. President but couldn't you do better in selecting an ambassador for the world's most populous nation? Of course recent choices have revealed these people could hardly pick out the country to which they were being nominated on a map. I think the Obama WH is in disintegration mode. I hope I am wrong but all indications are the wheels are coming off the wagon there.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)around him are already planning on thier next gig so they're not focused on working for him anymore, not really.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)How did an industry that does nothing but administrative paperwork - wedge themselves between those who need healed and the healers?
It makes no sense to me.
One word, Profits.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Payments" (to legislators)
sobenji
(316 posts)Shareholders
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because they can determine who gets elected and what laws are passed.
It is like cancer really.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)overhead of only 3% and the money went straight to pay for health care. Now that same money has to go through the hands of the Health Insurance Corporations where they take out at least 20% for themselves before sending it on to pay for the HC.
How did it happen, because there was no real fight to stop it.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)That is a state choice.
Per The US government
psiman
(64 posts)The whole idea of insuring for health was new, medicine was primitive, and the industry contributed essential technical expertise.
But that expertise is completely standardised by now, so it is high time that private insurance went the way of the buggy whip. Profit and Rent Seeking by entrenched interests are why we have not made the switch.
Soylent Brice
(8,308 posts)
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
renate
(13,776 posts)Not that single-payer health care would keep people from becoming meth dealers, but it's interesting how that comic and those pictures sort of bring home the craziness of medical bankruptcy in the richest country on earth--at least, they do to me. Thanks for posting that!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If the high salaries to executives, lobby cost and advertising would go to our great educational facilities to search for cures I would not have a big problem. Our health care should be just paying to those who provide our health care, our doctors, nurses and support teams would be receiving due compensation for their dedication of education and knowledge. A single payer system will probably be the answer, the wait time in which insurance companies are forcing us to wait would go away.
NJCher
(35,687 posts)Your post just highlights how it's really our economic system is out of date for the times.
The "high salaries to executives, lobby cost, and advertising" are just an aberration of capitalism. Capitalism was long ago tweaked to favor the administrative types, not the producers. To them, the producers are just a resource to be exploited, thus the motive to get them as inexpensively as they can.
We no longer live in a world where there are resources to exploit and lavish lifestyles to be supported. With the collapse of so many of the systems of our planet, it was long ago time to go into survival mode.
Presidents and CEOs who make multi-millions--especially in the healthcare system--are truly still sitting in the deck chairs of the Titanic.
Cher
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
Coyote_Bandit
(6,783 posts)that will not schedule an appointment for a new patient any sooner than a minimum of 3 to 4 weeks out - even though you can call and get a same day appointment for an established patient.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Coyote_Bandit
(6,783 posts)does that as a matter of policy. I can get a same day appointmnt for my father who is an establishd patient but they refuse to schedule me any sooner than 3 weeks because they consider me a new patient. You can get around that by calling a doctor or his nurse and having them schedule you in.
It isn't that there are not appointments available. It isn't based on insurance or lack thereof. It is a discriminatory practice. It discriminates against people who are new to a community and against people who for any number of reasons do not have an estblished primary care doctor. Depending on where one lives there may not be other clinics nearby and the only lternative may be an ER.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)this. We have been working since FDR to expand medical care to all Americans and this is just another step. I am lucky enough to be on Medicare and Medicaid but even there we are asked to select an insurance company. I think that the VA may be the only truly single payer program in the US. I don't think they have to select insurance carriers. Then again their care is through hospitals and clinics that are owned and operated by the VA and often not easily accessible. My son-in-law has to travel either to Superior Wisconsin or the twin cities for care. I often means his wife has to take a day off of work to drive him there.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Sorry, that is just false.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)sorry, the bar is a little higher for me. It it were higher for more people we would be a lot better off right now.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)we have to go through the process of choosing an insurance program just like you. You go ahead and feel sorry for yourself. That is your choice. I will continue to remember that if we did not have this faulty system my daughter would be dead. Luck - no a gift from the people of America - but I still feel lucky because it could be worse.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You meant you and your daughter, and that's fine. I don't feel sorry for myself. I have no idea what prompted you to post such a bizarre leap.
Another completely false statement. If we had a system like all of the other civilized countries, you would still be alive, and so would your daughter, and the millions who don't have Medicare and Medicaid would also have access to health care.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I had to scroll through a list of corporate logos and compare how much it was going to cost me. I am forced to choose an insurer rather than my government simply ensuring health care for me an my family.
I really hope we can get to single payer soon. It would require leadership and a strong dem party, willing to no be beholden to corporate interests.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Cancer at 2, 17 now. After the cancer, she could get no coverage for more than common kids illnesses, or sports injuries.
She's had kidney stones for years. Was never covered. Pre-existing cancer.
That stopped when the ACA passed.
She's at a high risk for medical issues for the rest of her life. But she can't ever be denied again.
Well, I guess we could work with Boehner to repeall the ACA. I mean, since the ACA is so awful, we might as well go back to the way things were before.
Right?
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)still remains elusive in spite of ACA. That is also in the 10s of millions. Middle class wages haven't budged since 1970s yet those of us outside earning limits for ACA coverage cannot afford to leave our corporate plans which increase 10% a year or so.
My coverage costs under ACA are almost exactly what I would pay on Cobra should I lose my job. Over $16K per year for F4 before deductions and other fees.
You need to understand that the middle class more than the rich are sponsoring ACA. We have been left out.
By the way, covering your kid until 26 totally doesn't count as a benefit. It is an admission of defeat acknowledging that your kids will never have a chance of making it on their own.
I'm happy for your gains, but many of us are the same or worse off for it. We fought for your coverage, now its time for you to fight for ours.
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)insurance is not health care, it's insurance. Single payer is the only way. Why should any money for health care go to a lame insurance company who is worried about profit and could care less about people health care needs. This country is so far behind times but way ahead on bone headed ideas!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)30% of Medicare beneficiaries voluntarily choose it over traditional Medicare, which has no out-of-pocket cap BTW, so you need a supplemental policy to be protected.
Right or wrong, some peoplelike these plans.
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)no need for anything else. Medicare, supplemental, veterans, all in one. Knock it out of the park success!!! Some might like???????? then. And keep your Doctor which is a BS statement of all time. He must be in your plan or you pay full boat!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
hunter
(38,317 posts)The health insurance industry needs to go away.
Nationalize them, undercut them with a national Federal plan open to all, whatever it takes.
Maybe the ACA is evolutionary in that direction, and it certainly helps many people, but what is the meaning of "insurance" in a pool of people that ought to include everyone?
Car, boat, motorcycle insurance? That makes sense. Not everyone has a car, boat, or motorcycle. Let those who do shop around for their own insurance.
But everyone has a body.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)against Medicare where he said something like; someday our grandchildren will ask us what it was like when we had freedom in America. No, really, and, while Americans hadn't been totally sucked in back then, they surely elected him president almost 20 years later, about the same time Medicare had been the law of the land and seniors were living longer and healthier lives. In fact millions of seniors were no longer poor, thanks to what Ronald Reagan called the end of freedom. They turned out in huge numbers and elected the actor who would have happily left them poor and sick.
For several years after Medicare and Medicaid became law and expanded, the health insurance companies competed. Most workplaces offered cheap or free group insurance and it was comprehensive. Even private insurance was reasonable to buy. We were headed to single payer and the insurance companies wanted to keep us happy.
Twenty years of propaganda, Reagan elected in a landslide, everything changes. Insurance companies take over the health care industry. Here's reality, it's America. Now we have to take health care back and regulating the insurance companies is just a start.
stage left
(2,962 posts)And the "freedom" he talked about is still being pushed by conservative goons like Ryan and Santorum and their ilk. Freedom. Yeah, right. Freedom to work for little pay and no benefits, freedom to starve, freedom to die. And still there are people buying the snake oil, thousands of them here in SC and other southern states. Thousands, millions apparently willing to take the food out of their own mouths, to collude in their own destruction. Why? Why?
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Healthcare, education and retirement.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I HATE insurance companies. I actually saw co-workers smiling and laughing while telling people, "Claim DENIED". Sadistic. Sorry, no, health insurance, for that and other reason. Happy that I now have JUST Medicare. Medicare Advantage can go take a hike. At least the Medicare Part B is not run through an insurance company.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Single payer: I wish we were getting access to health care rather than a government system to pay for health insurance.
You're just talking about how it gets paid for. Access is always there. It's a matter of paying for it.
It's never going to be absolutely free.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)I don't know if this is OT from what you're saying, but I just have to say. I work hard at being healthy by spending my money on organic foods and holistic remedies when need them. I want everyone to have health care even though I don't have much need for it myself. I'd just like for insurance to relieve me of some of the cost of not needing insurance. If I could only get an insurance that also covers organic foods and holistic remedies, then I could, for instance, buy new clothes, which I never buy, nor do I buy anything else for myself, because I'm spending all my money staying healthy.
Yeah, that may not be in sync with what you're talking about, but I just had to get that off my chest.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)even after we get universal health care it may not change for a while. But in all fairness to people like me, it has to change sometime.
Response to NightWatcher (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)I don't understand why we even bother with health insurance at all. Just seems like more money going to a middle man then going to treat the root problem itself. When I was younger and on my father's insurance plan, they would regularly try to skip payments or drop me altogether. People need straight up health care and not insurance!
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)an "non participating provider" if you don't.
However, the Mayo Clinic Hospital does participate in Medicare.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/patient-visitor-guide/minnesota/billing-insurance/faq/medicare-faq
Does Mayo Clinic accept Medicare assignment?
Medicare has two billing parts. Medicare Part A covers inpatient hospital services. Medicare Part B covers clinic services, physician fees and outpatient hospital services.
Mayo Clinic is a nonparticipating provider in the Medicare program and doesn't accept assignment on claims submitted to Medicare Part B except:
Where the law requires Mayo Clinic to do so
In the case of documented financial hardship
When the supplemental insurance is a contract payer
When you reside in the state of Minnesota
Mayo Clinic files claims to Medicare Part A and Part B on your behalf.
When claims are sent to Medicare on a nonassigned basis, the benefits for the services are sent directly to you. The law doesn't require health care providers to accept Medicare's approved amount as payment in full, and providers are entitled to bill you for the difference between their billed amount and Medicare's approved amount. Mayo Clinic limits its charges according to the limits set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the Medicare program. You're responsible for payment of all billed charges, including those that exceed Medicare's approved amount.
What about Medicare and hospital services?
Mayo Clinic Hospital, Methodist Campus and Mayo Clinic Hospital, Saint Marys Campus participate in the Medicare program. If you're hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Hospital, Saint Marys Campus or Mayo Clinic Hospital, Methodist Campus, Mayo Clinic files your Part A (hospital inpatient) and Part B (hospital outpatient) claims to Medicare for you. Medicare payments will be sent directly to the hospital. You'll receive a Medicare Summary Notice from Medicare when it processes your claim. Payment for Part B claims may be sent directly to you and should be forwarded to Mayo Clinic. If you have supplemental hospital insurance, Mayo Clinic will file the claim for you.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)in which the government is involved in the actual delivery of care (the doctors work for the government, hospitals are government-run). Not that many countries have this type of system, as opposed to single payer, where the government finances health care but doesn't run the actual delivery of medical care. That is simply national health insurance, not access to care.
Do you really think we can get rid of private doctors or university-affiliated hospitals in one fell swoop in the US and have them all directly run by the government?
elleng
(130,974 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)is that the need, desire or want for health care seemed to be conflated with the ability to afford it. Among my clients who have been approved under expanded medicaid I have many who were only eligible for the advanced premium tax credit. Even when the tax credit is applied many of my clients still cannot afford to purchase and enroll in a plan. To the extent that many of my families do not have anything extra to spare, not a dime in some cases.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Let's say that doctor spent $200k building a practice and hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of training to have the skill to treat patients. Should the doctor be allowed to make a profit then?
Let's say you were a doctor with a full patient panel and busy every day. Who would you prefer to treat first... the patient whos insurance reimburses $120/visit or the patient whos insurance pays $85/visit? The patients that have insurance that pays more will be treated first... simple economics.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)That's only fair that he should want to treat someone who will pay top dollar for it?
Nope, I'm not a fan of help only for those who can afford it.
If that's the case, should an ambulance take your credit card info before allowing you in the van?
I also don't think that education should be profit driven so that in order to become a doctor you have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)by setting up a strawman, answering the strawman and then completely deviating off subject. It's probably because the answer is obvious. A doctor's "profit" is also their "income" and nobody works for free. Now, you can argue the degree to which a doctor's profits are socially acceptable, but you simply cannot take the profit motive out of health care.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I can tell you are from the "I've got mine, the rest of you can...bootstraps" camp
I'm glad you are able to afford good things. Some of us are not so fortunate and I guess should just die. I like the idea that societies should take care of their members regardless of ability to pay.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)Even though ERs tout that no one can be turned away because of finances. My son in law went to the ER 3 times for chest pain, trouble breathing, horrible gastric distress. He was diagnosed with GERD and told to take prilosec. He is overweight so he was told to drop weight to breathe better. Each time the ER bounced him out with no treatment. FINALLY he saw a Dr. that saw past his financial problems (he was working with a CDL driving a concrete truck). A simple EKG that was not administered in the first 3 ER visits pointed out he was in Congestive Heart Failure with Atrial Fibrilation and a resting pulse of 180. Even a triage nurse should have noted the pulse rate. So, he ended up admitted, further testing found an enlarged heart, 10% heart function and 100lbs of his overweight was fluid buildup in his tissues. They tried for 3 months to control it all with meds causing rehospitalizations, ICU stays until they finally gave in AFTER he got medicaid 3 months after applying from his hospital bed. They implanted a pacemaker/defibrilator which should have been the first thing done. So I at least do not believe that ERs have a 'we treat all comers' regardless of ability to pay. For the record this is the only regional hospital, non-profit, state-county funded and my son-in-law is 38 years old with 2 young sons and this ER sent him away 3 times to just F-off and die.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)psiman
(64 posts)They should and will be compensated as such.
The question here is whether profit is proper mechanism: should the doctor be a businessman first, or a professional first?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)obscenely gross Profits from the health care industry. No one here is trying to deny Doctors a living wage.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I'm all for doctors getting paid. Just as cops get paid, teachers, firemen.....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Also, Doctors should not have to incur such a huge debt gaining the education necessary to become a Doctor in the first place.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)and I'm pointing out that a doctor's "profit" is their income and therefore there will always be a "profit" motive in healthcare. I'm also pointing out why those with insurance that reimburse less typically have less choice and longer waits for care.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)a productive conversation. I do not want to argue about Insurance when I think there should not be Private Insurance.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The reasons you cite about building a private business are less and less the reality for American MD's who are increasing employees of healthcare corporations.
Is the goal profit? Or broadly accessible quality medical services?
Educational services have mostly been treated as 'commonwealth resources', because profit isn't the goal, broad service is the goal.
University professors spend years in school, invest in the $200,000 range when direct costs and opportunity costs are added together. Yet people choose to do it. Across the US most of them earn around $50K-70K per year, and DUers generally think too much is paid for a college education.
Society expects a similar goal from healthcare: broad accessibility to quality services at the most affordable cost. There is really no particularly strong reason that healthcare should be treated as other than a not-for-profit asset of commonwealth...except that handsome profits can be made, if the social system allows it.
Moreover, treatment/ healthcare purchases are very unlike consumer purchases which involve choice. Healthcare providers know it. Around here I've never seen one advertise that they do things better for less. They advertise they can and will do everything...
Convincing people that they want everything is an unfair exploitation of the consumer when making choices about care for a loved one. We'd never tolerate such exploitation of the vulnerable in other industries.
Healthcare isn't a commodity suitable to control of the "invisible hand" of the for profit marketplace.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)One of the best I've seen.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)and possibly a summer cottage but they somehow manage to survive. The side kicker is that they actually go into the field because of their interest in humanity and science and not just finance or fame. Interesting how quality of life and life expectancy in those countries exceeds ours considerably.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)dumbest DU post in the last 3 days - and that is a really big pile you've climbed over.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)A collective demand.
Truth is, we get what we expect to get in the U.S. - we get what we, the people, accept.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
theboss
(10,491 posts)That's sort of the problem with this debate. We like the care that is available in the US. We don't like the costs to get it.
It's difficult to keep the former while changing the latter.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)It's not perfect but nor is it as terrible as you've been told.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The people who live with nhs or sp LOVE it, and wouldn't trade it for our system in a million years. Let's leave the republicans talking points out of the discussion
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)
Won't that be grand?!
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)they fail anyway. Isn't that how the government usually deals with such problems?
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)My best friend went to work on March 7th. We have had lots of snow up here and her workplace property had a heaved sidewalk that she tripped on and fell and broke her elbow in 7 places.
She was taken to the nearby hospital and given xrays and put in a sling and given pain killers.
She went in the next week for further xrays after the swelling went down.
Today she saw the bone specialist . She needs an operation. It will not heal on its own. Friday she gets the operation.
All of this will cost her zero.
THAT is health care.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The US government provides more direct health care than the Canadian government does.
Canada's system also makes it illegal for a provider to take private payment for a covered treatment. I wonder if the US would accept that..
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)
The careful phrasing should have been our clue.
It should have always been about getting the heathcare you need, when you need it, regardless of ability to pay.
jsr
(7,712 posts)
airplaneman
(1,239 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- You're right of course. So there's that.
Keep working at it. It's worse than you think.
K&R
''You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.''
~Morpheus
[center]
[/center]
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)We love insurance companies in the States. They are bee's knees!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But it seems very pouplar here.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)"Insurance" is a math game where insurance companies have a financial incentive to cut costs while denying procedures and aid whenever possible. This is because insurance, at it's very core, is based on a gamble. Many insured people by necessity use more healthcare per year than they pay in premiums. In order to cover the difference, the health insurance companies have to do everything in their power to get an even LARGER portion of their subscriber pool to use LESS medical care than they actually pay for. If everyone used as much coverage as they paid for, the whole system would collapse in on itself. The entire insurance business is designed to deny coverage, or look for the cheapest possible way to cover something they can't dodge, by its very nature. The ACA did nothing to change that, because IT CAN'T BE CHANGED. That's simply how "insurance" works.
With single payer, the subscriber pays a monthly premium to offset part of the cost of running the system, but any difference between collected premiums and care outlay is covered by the government. Where a private insurance company will go bankrupt if it's spending exceeds its collected premiums, a single payer system has the difference covered by the government. The pressure to cut costs and deny coverage is eliminated because there is no danger of system collapse due to "overuse". The fact that you also don't have stockholders screaming for higher dividends is another bonus.
By eliminating the profit-seeking middle man and the pressure to reduce quality, single payer results in better HEALTH CARE.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A whole lot. Almost as many as for-profit, actually. And some of the largest networks are non-profit also.
If the problem is insurers' profit, why aren't the non-profit plans any cheaper?
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Nonprofits aren't quite as bad because they aren't trying to put a layer of profit on top of everything, but they're still stuck with the core insurance model that mandates that the expenditures for MOST subscribers must be LESS than their premiums. The push is still there to reduce expenditures as much as possible.
Think of it this way: Four people are in an insurance pool and each pay $5 a month. One of them has a chronic illness requiring $10 a month for treatment. The only way for the insurance company to survive is to ensure that the other three spend LESS than $3.33 a month on medical care. If they spend more, the system goes bankrupt. That's how insurance works, whether profit or nonprofit, but on a much larger scale. Insurance companies have a built-in interest in reducing outlays for subscribers wherever possible.
Single payer backed by the government isn't constrained by this model. If four people are paying the same $5 a month, and one requires $10 a month in treatment, one spends $4, one $2, and one gets a $6 surgery, the government covers the $2 shortfall. The system doesn't break if spending exceeds premiums, which eliminates the push to screw subscribers out of coverage wherever possible. The result is higher quality healthcare for all.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Actual Medicare (just parts A and B) have a lot of holes in their coverage precisely because some people wind up getting incredibly expensive treatments. That's why as much as I'm against them from a policy side, Medicare Advantage plans are very popular.
the government covers the $2 shortfall
Nope. Medicare is self-funded. That's why people are freaking out about its trust fund running out in a decade or so. Medicare Advantage was a (sneaky) way to get general fund monies into the system to try to stave that off.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I'm almost afraid to look up thread because I know what's up there. You've stated it very cleanly and without bias and I know that won't matter to some as their minds and hearts seem to be closed to anything that's not pro-ACA. You, however, did a very good job communicating what you needed to communicate.. 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I happen to be fortunate enough to live an hour away from a Mayo Clinic that has great treatment facilities and professionals for two of my diseases. I can't afford to go and they don't take Medicare (which I'll be eligible for in October). The doctor I currently see cannot even pronounce the name one of my diseases, but lumps it into the treatment of my lupus.
...mean even when you get Medicare you still have no access to the best treatment? From the reading, it appears you do have coverage, but it's not clear how that coverage relates to Obamacare.
Obamacare: It's Obama's signature achievement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695694
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)It seems to me that no one wants to join forces to establish a strategy to get there. That's what disappoints me.