Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's take smoking as an example. You think there are people out there who will smoke, knowing that it causes lung cancer, because they figure government will pick up the tab for the chemo? Bizarre, but ok, if so, why doesn't having insurance give them the same incentive?
My wife's aunt has been on disability for years because she hurt her back and refuses to quit smoking. The doctors said the smoking is preventing her back from healing correctly, and 3 back surgeries later, she still hasn't quit. Because she's poor and on disability, she doesn't have to pay for any of it, and is pefectly content sitting in her trailer watching TV and taking pain killers as her health deteriorates.
Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
81–90 of 407 posts
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#82> "Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans" From many anecdotes I've read about medicine in socialized countries, it's unwise to assume that having insurance is the same as access. Many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered cost effective by The Single Payer, and the wait time for specialists can often be long. Further, what counts as "costs" in US health industry…
> Many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered cost effective by The Single Payer, and the wait time for specialists can often be long. Right now, many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered "elective" or "cosmetic" or "out of network" by The Private Insurer.
here's an article talking about wait times growing since then:https://globalnews.ca/news/930260/medical-wait-times-have-do...
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#83In the study, nearly all the computed savings comes from two sources. 1. Decrease in pharmaceutical costs as a result of better bargaining power. 2. Decrease in administrative overhead, calculated by extrapolating the overhead in medicare to the entire US healthcare economy. I don't have an informed opinion on either of these estimates, but my intuition is that #1 seems reasonable while #2 seems unlikely. The justifi…
Teams eliminated or dramatically reduced:
* VOB, verification of benefits, they fight with the insurance company just to determine what coverage the patient has, and it is purposefully not automated. If it were automated, it would be easier for us to know what they'll pay. By making it a manual process (or at least only partially automated) we have a greater chance of making a mistake they can reject a claim over. We also have a greater chance of simply getting someone on a bad day and refusing to cover things preemptively, required it to be elevated to our Appeals department.
* Coding, people whose jobs it is to make sure the notes left in the record by medical staff (doctors, nurses, techs, etc) is properly translated to ICD10 codes.
* Billers, people whose job it is to bundle up claims and records, make sure they're properly sorted for each insurance company, and submit the claims.
* UR, utilization review, the group that reviews how accurately we're tracking the treatment guidelines of the INSURER so they don't deny the claim for missing a comma. Our UR group missed a small technicality on some claims and we had to submit paper copies of every claim for 6 months to the insurer, in addition to the electronic requests as a "remediation and verification step", aka, punishment. We would literally print out the electronic claim, and mail it, so it's going to be identical to the electronic claim, but we had to do it for 6 months for one facility to one insurer.
* Collections, the people who call up the insurance company to demand payment for claims they approved but haven't paid on. This is a much larger group than you'd think, as most insurers will happily make you wait for payment until you complain.
* Appeals. They address complains made by insurers over rejected claims, either fixing the issue with the charge, or going to the insurers appeals department to tell them why it's correct. They also talk to insurers over patients that are rejected at the VOB stage.
* Out Of Network, these folks do nothing but deal with insurers we're not in-network with, collecting payments, negotiating Single Case Agreements, etc.
VOB and OON would be gone completely. Coders, UR, Bilelrs would have a lot less to do because there would be one insurer to deal with, so we could have fewer people. Medicare pays promptly and without hassle on approved claims, so does Tricare, so we'd need a lot fewer people in collections. We'd need fewer appeals people too due to one set of rules for everyone.
Healthcare in the USA is REALLY messed up, it's the worst sausage I've ever seen being made.
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#84The net savings would be $450B, but the total cost would still be in the 10s of trillions of dollars (Edit: 30-50 over 10 years), bigger than all of our federal spending combined. It's one thing to have as an objective, and another as a plan for getting there. The proposal they cite would make federal healthcare expenditures 69%(!!!) of the GDP (Edit: total federal expenditures). It's simply not realistic to convert…
That's not remotely true. I'm mystified how you could even type such a sentence without realizing its obvious falsity.
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#85My opinion is that we should first optimize the existing system to lower the medical cost first. Health insurance is just prepaid medical costs.
If the cost is lowered, no system would work.
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#86The net savings would be $450B, but the total cost would still be in the 10s of trillions of dollars (Edit: 30-50 over 10 years), bigger than all of our federal spending combined. It's one thing to have as an objective, and another as a plan for getting there. The proposal they cite would make federal healthcare expenditures 69%(!!!) of the GDP (Edit: total federal expenditures). It's simply not realistic to convert…
I am curious on what you think are the effects.
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe he'd ban supplemental insurance, just insurance that covers the same services the State option covers.
but... why? i mean, if i can afford it, i would want private health care because it's usually less crowded and you can have stuff done a lot faster. for example: a friend of mine had to wait 6mo to do a vasectomy through our public health care system. another friend waited 2w to do his (through private health care) if you could afford it, wouldn't it be better to pay for it? for me (and maybe i'm completely in the wr…
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#88What I don't get is how do 37 million Americans not have health insurance when the ACA was suppose to fix that issue? All of the plans are adjusted based on your income level and you get a tax credit if you are low income. If you are very poor then you get free healthcare....
1. 42% make too much to qualify for premium subsidies but elect not to purchase coverage, typically because it's unaffordable or just not worthwhile (the sibling commenters mentioning their expensive, crappy plans fall into this group).
2. 27% qualify for Medicaid, meaning that they could get coverage approximately free but they either don't know how or don't bother to sign up.
3. 22% qualify for partially subsidized coverage, but either they don't think the coverage is worth the money, they don't know how to sign up, or they just don't bother.
4. 9% are in the coverage gap - they live in states that didn't expand Medicaid and make too little to qualify for premium subsidies.
https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/a-closer-look-at-t...
Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#89Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study
#90The net savings would be $450B, but the total cost would still be in the 10s of trillions of dollars (Edit: 30-50 over 10 years), bigger than all of our federal spending combined. It's one thing to have as an objective, and another as a plan for getting there. The proposal they cite would make federal healthcare expenditures 69%(!!!) of the GDP (Edit: total federal expenditures). It's simply not realistic to convert…
US health care spending for 2018 alone was $3.65 trillion.
10 years of that sort of spending would result in $36.5 trillion.
So we're already talking tens of trillions of dollars, even if nothing changes.