Koch study: medicare for all saves money

LV426 said:
What I said was that instead of paying your $3,500 premium + OOPE capped at $6,350 for individuals and twice that for families, you instead pay a flat 2.9% of your income and don't have to pay any premiums or OOPE.
Click to expand...

How do you know that's all you'd be required to pay?
 
LV426 said:
It won't affect Medicare other than expanding it to more people and covering more procedures, treatments, and drugs. All this is in the draft legislation I linked to, what's your excuse for not reading it?
Click to expand...

So it will affect Medicare, and you lied when you said it wouldn't.
 
I'll ask again.

Does Medicare currently cover all the items you listed?

LV426 said:
1 (1) Hospital services, including inpatient and
2 outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day
3 emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs.
4 (2) Ambulatory patient services.
5 (3) Primary and preventive services, including
6 chronic disease management.
7 (4) Prescription drugs, medical devices, biologi8
cal products, including outpatient prescription drugs,
9 medical devices, and biological products.
10 (5) Mental health and substance abuse treat11
ment services, including inpatient care.
12 (6) Laboratory and diagnostic services.
13 (7) Comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and
14 newborn care.
15 (8) Pediatrics.
16 (9) Oral health, audiology, and vision services.
17 (10) Short-term rehabilitative and habilitative
18 services and devices.
Click to expand...
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
Tommy Douglas was gov of Saskatchewan in Canada. He started a universal healthcare system . It was so much better than what they had that the whole country adopted it, He is still the most popular person in Canadian polls. That is why states are dicking with starting it. It can happen if a state creates it. However in America with universal healthcare we can elimimnate the VA, Medicare and Medicaid. That would cut the overall costs a ton. But I doubt states have that option. We also save the ourtrageous costs of healthcare insurance companeies whose function is to deny as much care as they can get away with. More profit. We have an adversarial system with providers. Our system really sucks.
Click to expand...

True, every word.

And imagine how much savings would come from a huge reduction in provider costs, since they would no longer have the overhead of paying so many workers to haggle with insurance companies for payments.
 
LV426 said:
Generally, most workers who get insurance through their employer also pay a portion of that premium cost, in addition to the whole of the deductible, co-pays, coinsurance, and drug costs.

So you left those out of what you pay. How come?
Click to expand...

You're confused. I already provided what I pay in premiums and the max out of pocket. You refuse to accept the answer.

My deductible is $3000. Of that, my employer pays $2000 and I pay the remaining $1000 which is my max out of pocket. After that, it's 100%. We've covered the deductible part and that is only if you actually use the coverage or to a level where it hits the max. If I don't use it at all, I actually pay nothing. If you don't fill any prescriptions, you don't pay drug costs.

You single payer idiots use the doom and gloom scenario to try and scare people.

We've also covered that when the household income is more than the calculations you provided with the average, the amount paid for the coverage you support is more. In fact, if the household income is 3x that average, the costs is $4475.

Let's address the level of coverage. Does someone on the low income end get less coverage since they pay less in premiums? If not, despite your claims that it isn't redistribution of wealth, you're either a liar or a fucking fool.
 
CFM said:
You're confused. I already provided what I pay in premiums and the max out of pocket. You refuse to accept the answer.

My deductible is $3000. Of that, my employer pays $2000 and I pay the remaining $1000 which is my max out of pocket. After that, it's 100%. We've covered the deductible part and that is only if you actually use the coverage or to a level where it hits the max. If I don't use it at all, I actually pay nothing. If you don't fill any prescriptions, you don't pay drug costs.

You single payer idiots use the doom and gloom scenario to try and scare people.

We've also covered that when the household income is more than the calculations you provided with the average, the amount paid for the coverage you support is more. In fact, if the household income is 3x that average, the costs is $4475.

Let's address the level of coverage. Does someone on the low income end get less coverage since they pay less in premiums? If not, despite your claims that it isn't redistribution of wealth, you're either a liar or a fucking fool.
Click to expand...

Good thing your employer does that for you freeloader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top