Most (if not all) of the working (under 65) middle class is in private insurance, the majority of them being employee sponsored. Now according to some shifting to a Medicare for all system is going to make things cheaper and better for everyone. How often do we hear how other countries do it cheaper and with better outcomes, etc.
So could anyone explain how it will this Medicare for all system do things better and cheaper for the middle class? What are they going to do that private health insurance doesn’t? How is giving government another means to tax the middle class going to make the middle class wealthier? Exactly how will our healthcare improve with this system?
I always wonder: Do people who are so against a public healthcare system have some weird fantasy that every morning at the insurance companies they fire up the printers and start sending out checks for any and every claim with big ol’ smiles on their faces?
Because that ain’t how it works. A portion of your premiums goes to pay a small group of people whose job is to figure out ways to deny your claims. (Source: wife once worked for an insurance company and was on the same floor with that group.). Now, if it’s government employees deciding what they will and won’t pay for it’s a “death panel”. What’s the civilian equivalent called?
Where did I claim that one is better than the other? Our country currently has a hybrid system (if you will), where about 40% of our current healthcare system is through the government. In other words we have something to compare off of in our own country.
I’m just asking a simple question specifically pertaining to the middle class.
Never forget that it is in your insurance company’s best interest to say “no” to you whenever the opportunity presents itself. Some people don’t quite see that.
Exactly. People also worry about a tax increase. Well, if you’re not covered through your employer maybe you’re paying $600 a month for insurance. If healthcare goes public you stop paying that premuim and maybe your taxes go up $100 a month. Sounds pretty good to me.
And another thing: insurance companies are the reason the uninsured get so screwed with medical costs. Let’s say a woman has one of those “Cadillac policies” that covers 100% of childbirth. She goes to the hospital and has her baby with no complications, baby’s healthy, no extended stay. Well, maybe $3000 would cover everything. But the hospital knows that if they send a $3000 bill to the insurance company it’ll get all sliced and diced and they’ll end up getting maybe $1500. So they send a bill in for $8000 instead. That gets all slashed and the hospital only gets $3500. So the hospital gets their money, the insurance company gets to brag about how much money they saved to the shareholders, and the next uninsured woman that comes in gets hit with an $8000 bill. And people wonder why birthrates are declining.
I was hoping for some more specifics. As I indicated in the OP, we currently have government involved in about 40% of the healthcare market - Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. How do those programs currently compare with private insurance and or private healthcare businesses? Obviously with respect to similar situations.
That’s not why birth rates are declining at least when it comes to middle class milenials living in states like NJ. High student loan debt, high cost of living, high taxation, I would say are likely the 3 biggest reasons for that.
I would be in the camp of “some people”. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I believe you. I just never experienced that in my entire life so I never thought about it.
For one, administrative costs for Medicare and Medicaid are significantly lower than with private insurers. You can go look at some CMS data and private insurance company financial filings to compare the two.
Both sides on the hill have done things that are starting to hurt the middle class who relay upon Obamacare. The biggest factor are the 25% - 35%. The estimate is that the rising costs will force some middle class folks to not get insurance. That will burden everyone should they get a really bad medical condition.
I have read that Medicare does an excellent job processing claims in a timely manner. Certainly they could do better identifying abuse. Medicade is a different story. There are much longer delays and I have read that there are a growing number of Doctors and groups that no longer accept Medicade folks.
Plus it is hard/cost more to rip off the Federal government than some peasant like us. I had severe pains in my chest more than anything I ever felt and went to the ER. They took a cat-scan and gave me some dope and said it was gall stones and I need a operation and was referring me to a surgeon who also happens to work for same corporation that owns the hospital. Well I am on VA medical so went to VA hospital to consult with VA doctor who told me that in no way could this be gall stones. He looked at my medication list and saw that I had just been taken off acid re-flux medication and refereed me to a doctor that determined I had a sever case of acid hitting a nerve that can cause some major pain.
So the Medical Corporation was trying to perform a elective surgery on me that had nothing to do with what my issue was. That something one expects to happen sometimes with getting car fixed, but not when it could kill you as surgery no matter what runs risks with it. This is blatant fraud.
Since 2008, the American Medical Association has been publishing a report card on insurers nationally, which compares denial rates, administrative costs and other factors.
In its most recent report from 2013, the association found Medicare most frequently denied claims, at 4.92 percent of the time; followed by Aetna, with a denial rate of 1.5 percent; United Healthcare, 1.18 percent; and Cigna, 0.54 percent.
Thanks, but you did see this right? And remember this is not hard data, but random sampling, since the insurance companies don’t release that information.
“But the report also shows significant year-to-year variability. In 2008, Aetna denied claims 6.8 percent of the time; Cigna, 3.44 percent; and United, 2.68 percent of the time.”
I think a more comprehensive analysis would be needed to make any real claim like that…
