Medicare for All Would Cut Poverty by Over 20 Percent

[txradioguy]

Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy.    These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".

So much for your alleged belief in individual liberty.

[musiclady]

I remember my mother paying for care with a check on the way out of the doctor's office. Before the government decided to 'help'.

That's what we did.  We paid for healthcare because, before the government got involved, we could AFFORD it.

[libertybele]

That's what we did.  We paid for healthcare because, before the government got involved, we could AFFORD it.

Exactly.  Not only that I remember my parents being able to put a call into the doc and he would suggest a treatment that could be done at home or recommend something over the counter or a home remedy -- I also remember a couple of house calls...AND we rarely went to the doc's.  Nowadays people go in for the common cold, seasonal allergies, scrapes, bruises, you name it.  The docs then write scrips that are worthless and most often with time the body heals itself.  Now we have to worry more about the side affects of the drugs prescribed more so than the original ailment.  In addition we are now faced with increased deadly viruses and different strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[berdie]

Exactly.  Not only that I remember my parents being able to put a call into the doc and he would suggest a treatment that could be done at home or recommend something over the counter or a home remedy -- I also remember a couple of house calls...AND we rarely went to the doc's.  Nowadays people go in for the common cold, seasonal allergies, scrapes, bruises, you name it.  The docs then write scrips that are worthless and most often with time the body heals itself.  Now we have to worry more about the side affects of the drugs prescribed more so than the original ailment.  In addition we are now faced with increased deadly viruses and different strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

I asked my Dad how we paid for health care before Medicare...and the infiltration of the necessity for insurance.  His answer was the same as already stated..."We paid cash for it." I can count on the fingers of my hands how often I went to the doctor when I was a kid. Of course, now my BP is high and I'm required to go every 6 months. I couldn't afford that without insurance and a drug plan. My PCP doesn't understand that this is a new thing for me, lol.

[Applewood]

When I was a lass, our family doctor was the stereotypical image of a small town doctor.  He even made house calls -- a concept that was dying back then.  Doc was everything -- primary doctor, ob/gyn, cardiologist, pediatrician, you name it.  There were no specialists back then.  And when he treated you, the fee was $10.  No extras for immunizations, xrays, bloodwork or whatever.  In fact, most of the time there were no tests.  Doc could diagnose a patient just by looking him or her over and asking questions.   Seldom needed a  pharmacy either.  When we kids had a cough, Doc gave us his own brew of cough medicine in whatever flavor we preferred (mine was cherry).  I don't know what was in it, but it worked.

Doc was paid in cash.  If for some reason a patient didn't have the money, Doc would treat him or her for free or tell the patient to pay whenever he could.  However, my Dad believed in paying Doc right away, even if it meant Dad had to do without something or having to put off a certain purchase. 

The only insurance available back then was for hospitalization.  Dad and the rest of us had coverage through Dad's employer.  No premiums, copays or deductibles.  There was only one hospital bill.  No separate charges for tests, pharmacies, consults with other doctors and so forth.  Dad had to submit the claim himself, but all he had to do was fill out an insurance form, then send it with the hospital bill to the insurer.  No fuss, no muss.  The hospital was usually paid promptly; I don't remember any bill ever being questioned or rejected. 

Medical care was a lot simpler back then -- and a helluva lot cheaper.

[Sanguine]

Not too many years ago, I worked for two retired docs who did not take insurance.  Doing so allowed them to make money while keeping prices affordable.  A basic doctor visit was $35.  And, they would tell the patient exactly what a procedure or medicine would cost before it was done.

We filled out an insurance form and sent it with patients who then filed them with their insurance companies.  Worked like a charm.

[Hoodat]

Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy.

Which is why it is also one of the most overpriced and non-flexible products you can buy.

These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".

These calls to get the government out of the insurance market reflect a very strong consumer desire to have vastly more options as lower prices.  As a consumer, I should be allowed to purchase whatever insurance product I want.  If I want to purchase an insurance policy available in a neighboring State that does not consider 25-year-olds as minor dependents and that excludes types of coverage that I do not want (e.g. maternity care, addiction treatment, HIV treatment, etc.), then I shouldn't have to endure a Big Brother federal government that denies me (at the point of a gun) the right to do so.

Again, it comes down to whether or not you love the Constitution.  As one who loves it, I find it unconstitutional for a federal government to prohibit interstate commerce when it comes to insurance, yet still regulates intrastate commerce as if it is interstate.  Clearly, you do not see it this way.  With you, the Constitution always takes a back seat to what you want.

[Hoodat]

During the General Election this might be a winning point for the Democrats. Presumably this will save money for other social programs like SNAP, since people won't be poor enough to qualify

How is giving out more free stuff going to save money?  And how is artificially increasing demand (which will artificially increase prices) going to lower the cost of health care?

[bigheadfred]

I go to an MD who works out of his house. At least twice a year for lab work. Average cost, with lab, is about $55 per visit. He does house calls. Doesn't take insurance.

He wrote a book. And yes, I have a signed copy. And no, I am not trying to sell his book. You get the gist from the 3,000-word description.

Dr, James Brook.

The High Price of Socialized Medicine: A History of Government Meddling in American Health Care, and How a Free Market Would Solve Our Problems

Here is the book description, in full, from Amazon.

American health care is so expensive because of unrestrained free markets, right? Dr. Brook used to think so, until he learned the truth in his medical training. He was an unabashed supporter of socialized medicine, until he saw what socialism was doing to the people it was supposed to be helping, and to the country as a whole. He changed his tune completely during medical school, and opened a family practice that operates as closely to free market principles as possible. The result? Affordable, thorough care brought to those people that the main-stream media say have “no access to health care.” This book explains what Dr. Brook learned that changed his attitude. It is the result of his years of training and experience as a doctor, and extensive research. How would we know what a free market would do to health care? We have not had one in many decades. We have layer upon layer of government regulations which strangle the efficiency of health care delivery. Obamacare is just the latest layer, although a very important one. Most of the solutions put forth to try to make health care affordable center around getting more of it covered by insurance or government. The simple truth of the matter is that we are over-insured, and that is the underlying problem. Tax incentives promoting health insurance for even the simplest things have led to our high costs. By not taking any insurance, Dr. Brook and others like him keep their costs down to surprisingly affordable levels. This is true in family practice and even for complex surgical care. The “poor” in America have electronics like computers, smart phones, and huge high definition TV sets. Why are electronics so affordable? Why are MRI scans not just as obtainable to “poor” Americans? The difference is found in free markets. Dr. Brook not only explains why this is true, but he gives examples of actual free market medical practices providing the same kind of results - care that is affordable to the patients and profitable to the providers of care. Many others who call for health care reform are advocating more government control, including completely socialized medicine. This is like taking a patient in congestive heart failure with fluid overload, and giving him a big bolus of IV fluid. Others just recommend trifling around at the edges of our problems, with changes to health savings accounts and the structure of Medicare. This is like taking our fluid overloaded patient and just changing the formulation of the IV fluid we are giving him. Why not take an extreme approach, and drain off excess fluid? This book makes the case in a very compelling, well documented way, that government interference has caused our problems with high cost and low levels of service. The solution, then, is not more interference, but less. Remove government interventions at all levels, and allow a free market to flourish. Health care will become affordable, and high levels of service will return. The patient will once again be treated like a valued customer that the doctor will work hard to please. House calls and thoroughness will revive. This is about more than just health care. Our entire economy is at risk of collapse if we continue on our current course. If you are opposed to a government-run system of health care, then read this book. It will confirm your suspicions about socialized medicine, and give you intellectual ammunition to argue your case in a logical and thorough way. If you are undecided, then read this book. It will explain the workings of our health care economy in a way that you probably have not heard before. If you are dedicated to socialized medicine, then read this book. If you want to elevate the condition of the lower classes, which socialists say they want to do, then you need to use free markets to accomplish that goal.

Link to Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Price-Socialized-Medicine-Government/dp/1507803281

[musiclady]

How is giving out more free stuff going to save money?  And how is artificially increasing demand (which will artificially increase prices) going to lower the cost of health care?

Stop being so logical.  It doesn’t work with the indoctrinated left.

[Bigun]

I go to an MD who works out of his house. At least twice a year for lab work. Average cost, with lab, is about $55 per visit. He does house calls. Doesn't take insurance.

He wrote a book. And yes, I have a signed copy. And no, I am not trying to sell his book. You get the gist from the 3,000-word description.

Dr, James Brook.

The High Price of Socialized Medicine: A History of Government Meddling in American Health Care, and How a Free Market Would Solve Our Problems

Here is the book description, in full, from Amazon.

American health care is so expensive because of unrestrained free markets, right? Dr. Brook used to think so, until he learned the truth in his medical training. He was an unabashed supporter of socialized medicine, until he saw what socialism was doing to the people it was supposed to be helping, and to the country as a whole. He changed his tune completely during medical school, and opened a family practice that operates as closely to free market principles as possible. The result? Affordable, thorough care brought to those people that the main-stream media say have “no access to health care.” This book explains what Dr. Brook learned that changed his attitude. It is the result of his years of training and experience as a doctor, and extensive research. How would we know what a free market would do to health care? We have not had one in many decades. We have layer upon layer of government regulations which strangle the efficiency of health care delivery. Obamacare is just the latest layer, although a very important one. Most of the solutions put forth to try to make health care affordable center around getting more of it covered by insurance or government. The simple truth of the matter is that we are over-insured, and that is the underlying problem. Tax incentives promoting health insurance for even the simplest things have led to our high costs. By not taking any insurance, Dr. Brook and others like him keep their costs down to surprisingly affordable levels. This is true in family practice and even for complex surgical care. The “poor” in America have electronics like computers, smart phones, and huge high definition TV sets. Why are electronics so affordable? Why are MRI scans not just as obtainable to “poor” Americans? The difference is found in free markets. Dr. Brook not only explains why this is true, but he gives examples of actual free market medical practices providing the same kind of results - care that is affordable to the patients and profitable to the providers of care. Many others who call for health care reform are advocating more government control, including completely socialized medicine. This is like taking a patient in congestive heart failure with fluid overload, and giving him a big bolus of IV fluid. Others just recommend trifling around at the edges of our problems, with changes to health savings accounts and the structure of Medicare. This is like taking our fluid overloaded patient and just changing the formulation of the IV fluid we are giving him. Why not take an extreme approach, and drain off excess fluid? This book makes the case in a very compelling, well documented way, that government interference has caused our problems with high cost and low levels of service. The solution, then, is not more interference, but less. Remove government interventions at all levels, and allow a free market to flourish. Health care will become affordable, and high levels of service will return. The patient will once again be treated like a valued customer that the doctor will work hard to please. House calls and thoroughness will revive. This is about more than just health care. Our entire economy is at risk of collapse if we continue on our current course. If you are opposed to a government-run system of health care, then read this book. It will confirm your suspicions about socialized medicine, and give you intellectual ammunition to argue your case in a logical and thorough way. If you are undecided, then read this book. It will explain the workings of our health care economy in a way that you probably have not heard before. If you are dedicated to socialized medicine, then read this book. If you want to elevate the condition of the lower classes, which socialists say they want to do, then you need to use free markets to accomplish that goal.

Link to Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Price-Socialized-Medicine-Government/dp/1507803281

Without reading the book I can assure you that Dr. Brook is 100% correct @bigheadfred

[bigheadfred]

Without reading the book I can assure you that Dr. Brook is 100% correct @bigheadfred

I just wanted to point out where I go and what kind of doctor.

I don't have insurance. I could probably get some with a huge subsidy, but that flat pisses me off. I don't want any of you paying for my health insurance.

[Hoodat]

I don't have insurance.

For all practical purposes, I don't have insurance either.  I only pay for it.  My premiums today are higher than they were in 2010.  The difference is that my deductible back then was only $1,500.   Today it is $13,000.  Meanwhile, doctors continue to do procedures and charge fees as if the insurance company is the customer, except I am the one who ends up paying those fees.

[bigheadfred]

For all practical purposes, I don't have insurance either.  I only pay for it.  My premiums today are higher than they were in 2010.  The difference is that my deductible back then was only $1,500.   Today it is $13,000.  Meanwhile, doctors continue to do procedures and charge fees as if the insurance company is the customer, except I am the one who ends up paying those fees.

My employer-based insurance ended Jan.1, 2015. They would give you a pay raise that was enough to cover your share of the cost when you became eligible. So it showed as a deduction on your paystub. I added my wife for about $135/month. 80/20 insurance. The deductible was $500.

I claim an exemption for the penalty on my taxes every year. I think the Individual Mandate ends this year?

[Hoodat]

My employer-based insurance ended Jan.1, 2015. They would give you a pay raise that was enough to cover your share of the cost when you became eligible. So it showed as a deduction on your paystub. I added my wife for about $135/month. 80/20 insurance. The deductible was $500.

$135/mo would be nice.  Unfortunately, I am prohibited by federal law from purchasing insurance offered in other States.  80/20 would be nice too.  Technically, I have 80/20, except that my network now is less than 1/3 the size of the network I had before Obamacare.  So anyone I really need to see is naturally out of network with only 60% coverage, not that I even get that since my deductible is so high.

The best thing I have going today is my HSA which lets me pay for healthcare with pre-tax income.  But there are limits on how much I can contribute.

[bigheadfred]

$135/mo would be nice.  Unfortunately, I am prohibited by federal law from purchasing insurance offered in other States.  80/20 would be nice too.  Technically, I have 80/20, except that my network now is less than 1/3 the size of the network I had before Obamacare.  So anyone I really need to see is naturally out of network with only 60% coverage, not that I even get that since my deductible is so high.

The best thing I have going today is my HSA which lets me pay for healthcare with pre-tax income.  But there are limits on how much I can contribute.

It was good. Until it ended. I really think when it comes to insurance, health care, big pharma, and the gubmint, RICO applies.

[Jazzhead]

Perhaps Mr. @Jazzhead would be kind enough to explain to us just why he thinks all that regulation of this market is necessary.

Insurance is all about the shifting of risk.  By paying an insurance premium,  I am seeking to have a third party assume the financial costs of a risk that is unlikely to occur, but if it does occur would be ruinous.   The insurance company is betting in turn that it will make money by collecting and investing premiums that in total exceed the claims it is obliged to pay in a given year.   

So the states have traditionally regulated the market for insurance, including health insurance, to make sure that insurance companies have sufficient reserves and other indicia of financial integrity to make good on the promises they've made to their policyholders.   However,  another aspect of insurance that states (and now, with the ACA, the federal government) increasingly regulate is the design of insurance policies; that is,  what risks they must cover as a matter of law.    Here, the ACA has done great damage by essentially nationalizing many of these requirements, such as coverage for prescription drugs,  preventive care, mental health and substance abuse, etc.  The ACA has also nationalized certain underwriting practices, such as the permissible spread in premium differentials between young and old,  so that younger folks are essentially subsidizing the costs of providing coverage to older folks.     The market has effectively been distorted and stifled,  and with it consumer choice.   
   

[txradioguy]

Insurance is all about the shifting of risk.  By paying an insurance premium,  I am seeking to have a third party assume the financial costs of a risk that is unlikely to occur, but if it does occur would be ruinous.   The insurance company is betting in turn that it will make money by collecting and investing premiums that in total exceed the claims it is obliged to pay in a given year.   

So the states have traditionally regulated the market for insurance, including health insurance, to make sure that insurance companies have sufficient reserves and other indicia of financial integrity to make good on the promises they've made to their policyholders.   However,  another aspect of insurance that states (and now, with the ACA, the federal government) increasingly regulate is the design of insurance policies; that is,  what risks they must cover as a matter of law.    Here, the ACA has done great damage by essentially nationalizing many of these requirements, such as coverage for prescription drugs,  preventive care, mental health and substance abuse, etc.  The ACA has also nationalized certain underwriting practices, such as the permissible spread in premium differentials between young and old,  so that younger folks are essentially subsidizing the costs of providing coverage to older folks.     The market has effectively been distorted and stifled,  and with it consumer choice.   
 

Medicare for All would do nothing to give consumers a better choice.  And it's not really about medical care or coverage anyway...as with most leftist ideas...it's about wealth transfer.

[Hoodat]

Insurance is all about the shifting of risk.  By paying an insurance premium,  I am seeking to have a third party assume the financial costs of a risk that is unlikely to occur, but if it does occur would be ruinous.   The insurance company is betting in turn that it will make money by collecting and investing premiums that in total exceed the claims it is obliged to pay in a given year. 

That's the gist of it.  Consumers who are risk-averse create a market for insurance.  Consumers who are risk-loving do not.

So the states have traditionally regulated the market for insurance, including health insurance, to make sure that insurance companies have sufficient reserves and other indicia of financial integrity to make good on the promises they've made to their policyholders.

Which is their right under Amendment X, US Constitution.  The problem lies with the Federal Legislature which prohibits an insurer in one State from offering policies in another.  It is an affront to interstate commerce.  So if a big insurer wants to operate in all 50 states, then they have to set up 50 separate autonomous companies which drives up their costs considerably.  And the biggest irony of all that the government uses the interstate commerce clause of Article I to justify their power to prohibit interstate commerce.

However,  another aspect of insurance that states (and now, with the ACA, the federal government) increasingly regulate is the design of insurance policies; that is,  what risks they must cover as a matter of law.    Here, the ACA has done great damage by essentially nationalizing many of these requirements, such as coverage for prescription drugs,  preventive care, mental health and substance abuse, etc.  The ACA has also nationalized certain underwriting practices, such as the permissible spread in premium differentials between young and old,  so that younger folks are essentially subsidizing the costs of providing coverage to older folks.     The market has effectively been distorted and stifled,  and with it consumer choice.   

Correct on all counts.  And it demonstrates why the Federal Government needs to get the hell out of the insurance market.

In addition, the federal mandates force risk-loving consumers to behave as risk-adverse consumers, artificially driving up demand, and with it, price.  The irony here is that the excuse given for implementing Obamacare was to drive down price, yet Econ 101 correctly predicted that price would increase as a result.

And now the final irony.  These same Democrats (and their policy supporters) who originally forced these mandates upon us at the point of a gun while preaching the need that everyone "must" have insurance are now telling us that private insurance needs to be done away with altogether (also at the point of a gun).

[Bigun]

That's the gist of it.  Consumers who are risk-averse create a market for insurance.  Consumers who are risk-loving do not.


Which is their right under Amendment X, US Constitution.  The problem lies with the Federal Legislature which prohibits an insurer in one State from offering policies in another.  It is an affront to interstate commerce.  So if a big insurer wants to operate in all 50 states, then they have to set up 50 separate autonomous companies which drives up their costs considerably.  And the biggest irony of all that the government uses the interstate commerce clause of Article I to justify their power to prohibit interstate commerce.


Correct on all counts.  And it demonstrates why the Federal Government needs to get the hell out of the insurance market.

In addition, the federal mandates force risk-loving consumers to behave as risk-adverse consumers, artificially driving up demand, and with it, price.  The irony here is that the excuse given for implementing Obamacare was to drive down price, yet Econ 101 correctly predicted that price would increase as a result.

And now the final irony.  These same Democrats (and their policy supporters) who originally forced these mandates upon us at the point of a gun while preaching the need that everyone "must" have insurance are now telling us that private insurance needs to be done away with altogether (also at the point of a gun).

     It' really all about cradle to grave control of us!