That's SOCIALISM! The horror!

The people who rail against socialized health care don't seem to have an objection to socialized national defense, even though both are designed to protect the same group.

Taxes, premiums, deductibles and co-pays will pay for it. It will cost an employer $5 per hour for a maximum of 40 hours per week to pay for it. That is cheaper then what they are paying now for health care for employees and their families. We need to sell to the corporations that they will be saving money by letting the government provide health care insurance. No more surprise $1M bills for businesses in America or for the citizens of the US.

But that's still the argument out there.

That, yeah, you will lose that, but we got something Better!! Trust us!!!

It is an electoral loser.

But if we use the ACA, which is now popular, as a vehicle to achieve Universal Coverage we can get Where we all want to be.

And notice how these articles talk about savings and sociatial cost but NEVER talk about the cost of government outlays for Medicare for all.

My company provides healthcare to over 70,000 people in Florida. Good healthcare since the ACA mandates. Those people aren’t voting for someone promising something better. Bird in the bush argument.

How we as a party propose it and then roll it out is going to be critical to getting the votes we need to make it reality.

Right now Medicare is admistered through private insurance companies. Will the government take over administration, or continue to use these companies? We will go from what, 59 million people on Medicare to 346 million. How will this be achieved? Do we have enough providers? ( the answer is no) what is the timetable? Will hospitals and clinics be able to operate effectively and efficiently under a M4A plan? What about underserved areas? I have a lot more questions actually. I’m going to try and catch a townhall by my rep, who is also for M4A

The last thing I’m worried about is how it’s going to be paid for. I’m worried about the nuts and bolts of proper adminstation and good healthcare delivery

Universal healthcare is my goal. Is M4A realistic, or a political slogan?

These are bandaid answers. I am an RN in a hospital that already loses money on Medicare. Yet not everyone has insurance and we eat those costs as well. Maybe it would even out?
We deal with bundling reimbursement and HCPS, not to mention the labyrinth medical coding also, there is an anticipated provider shortage.

Additional policies, such as Medicare Advantage policies, are popular and are administered by private companies, but not everyone has those.

The solution is to have Medicare cover everything, so that those private additional policies will disappear. The government will continue to administer Medicare, as it does now.

And eliminate the supplementals?

I am not being snarky, I want to know what the general perception is.

And cover everyone the same way they are covered now? Keep reimbursements the same?

Right now, Medicare covers 80% of the costs. Hence the supplemental plans. The only reason for it not to be 100% is to give a gift to the insurance industry.

It also doesn't cover dentistry and hearing aids. That needs to change.

I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m say you’d need a minimum, say, a definite timeline and a provider plan. Should providers be allowed to opt out? There are not, right now, no matter what form of universal healthcare we come up with, enough providers.

Hospitals work closely with the government to improve outcomes using evidence based practice at the same time are very concerned with cutting costs. Medicare fraud is also a big problem

A preventative care program is essential

I can tell you Nursing leaders are preparing to step into the breach with Nurse practitioners, but what they are allowed to do varies from state to state.

Getting it payed for isn’t as concerning to me as getting off the ground in a reasonable manner.

Including lots of study of existing systems, such as the NHS in the UK.

But what we need right away on January 20, 2021 is a solid commitment to making it happen, and a reasonable timeline.

Similar to the IRS. I would also think that almost all doctors, pharmacies hospitals and clinics are already enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare. It would be easy to share those enrollments when it is requested by the provider.

As far as paperwork, providers would submit on just one format, not different ones for each insurance company. Providers would have very few difficulties with coverage so the provider can be paid.

When I retired part of my job was working with Medicaid payments and the providers. I knew of just a very few exceptions for paper claims. 99.9% were filed electronically (online).

Hospitals are not paid for what Medicare considers preventable nosocomial infections or injury, pressure injuries, urinary track infections, hospitals acquired pneumonia. I know health insurance companies some cover things like in patient rehab, some don’t, Medicare covers SNFs.


One format do you mean one computer program? It’s a huge jump in population coverage and we are not set up for it. I think the ACA opened the door. It would have to be administered regionally, you are absolutely right about that.

There are a lot of questions and challenges. But i think this country has the smart, talented people to do the job. No out sourcing any of it.

If we could get the Public Option and let individuals decide what they want, private or public health coverage.

The pricing will have to be a huge discussion. Mostly because the Public Option will cover everything and anything.

Oh, and auditors. Lots of auditors to keep everyone honest.

I think we are working on switching everything to EPIC— seems to be the most popular user friendly program, at least in Washington state. Just the standardized will be quite a bit of work. Agree about the auditors

Delmette, are you creating jobs here?? I like the sound of that.

The Republican BS is the trillions of dollars it would cost.

The government and the people pay for their health care via a variety of means now - with a percentage of people that cannot afford it (or can't afford to not pay it).

In single payer, the government and the people still pay for their health care via a variety of means. But the difference is, the middle man - the insurance companies - their 20% of admin and profit is cut out of the deal.

The folks currently paying insurance won't in single payer or won't the same way. The notion that the folks will not pay anything in single payer and the government will suddenly take on trillions in health care costs - picking up their tab is nonsense. Either taxes go up or single payer insurance is charged to take the dollars that used to go to insurance companies to help pay the government's tab.

The bottom line is without the middle man, health insurance costs considerably less for all.

Some of that will be offset by those who have no insurance now getting coverage. They're already getting treated in emergency rooms so some of that cost is already being carried by others.

All these countries didn't let the Kochs buy the propaganda for corporate healthcare profits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care

The part for me where this issue became passionate for me is when you don't do this, people without healthcare die. There are thousands of people in America without healthcare dying every year so the heathcare corporations can continue to collect their profits. It needs to stop.

they become bankrupt, they lose homes, they become homeless. Unconscionable, inhumane treatment of people - for corporate profits and insane CEO compensation.

People, spend some time reading about the various European systems so many here idolize.

None are perfect nor do they result in perfect results.

But please read about the French route to Universal Healthcare. It has resulted in what is often regarded as the best healthcare system in the world. It is decidedly not Medicare for all because the French can be as contrary as we are.

But if you spend even 2 hours studying it, you will see how the ACA is perfectly set up to lead to that kind of system. We would all give so much for a system like France and the ACA can get us there without trashing our existing system. Which will never happen.

With everyone having healthcare cradle to grave, things like cancer can be caught earlier when they are more likely to be cured and are cheaper to treat. Chronic conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure can be better managed before they cause premature disability or death.

That means saving lives and keeping people able bodied and in the workforce. Those people will work and pay taxes whereas someone who is disabled would get SSI or SSDI. The survivors of someone who dies prematurely would get SS benefits. That is all real money.

When everyone is covered it also improves the quality of care. Right now if someone doesn't have insurance they either use emergency rooms for primary care and emergencies or go without. ERs must stabilize an injured person but they are under no obligation to provide the best care available to someone without insurancwle.

I met a young man in his 20s. He was in a wheelchair and profoundly depressed. One of his legs had been amputated. It turns out he lost it in a construction accident. He was a day laborer. His leg had been mangled and bleeding heavily. With some advanced microsurgery they may have been able to save the leg but since he was uninsured, they just cut it off. That was the quickest, cheapest way to save his life.

So instead of a young man with an injured leg, needing a few weeks to heal and perhaps some physical therapy, he was a suicidal amputee who would never work in construction again. Sure, he could sue his employer, but unless his employer had insurance, he would get nothing.

...

In ten years, 90% of people will be in MFA.

No choice/option to start — in 10 years will be sitting here arguing same junk.