Lion of the Blogosphere

Medicaid-for-all much less expensive than private insurance!

If you look at this chart you’ll see that average Medicaid spending per adult (which I presume are those adults who don’t qualify for Medicare) was only $3,247 per year in FY2011.

That’s a lot less money per enrollee than the cost of Obamacare insurance policies. Plus Medicaid covers 100% of medical expenses, not like crappy Obamacare plans that come with huge deductibles and copays and where you have to fight with the insurance company over every bill to avoid being ripped off.

Less expensive per enrollee plus 100% free coverage plus better customer service.

So why can’t scrap our private-insurance-based health system and just go with Medicaid?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 26, 2017 at 10:47 pm

93 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Indeed, this is the only sensible solution to the health care crisis. Everything else is baloney. I have Medicaid and I’m not letting go of it.

    Yakov

    March 26, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    • Medicaid scamming on top of tax scamming. Our great immigrants, folks!

      Peterike

      March 26, 2017 at 11:48 pm

      • @Peterike

        Mate, where is your perspective? Life, as you certainly have heard, isn’t back and white. Immigrants to this country have driven out Indians to settled the land, they had brought in the negroes to work it. This is how they made this country great. Today we live in a different world where we don’t proudly display enemy scalps, but in the historical context those were mighty acts. Those were acts of immigrants!

        Back to the context. Look here, 40 years ago while earning $8 an hour I was able to afford, rent, private school for one child, Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance out of my salary. I don’t think that I need to continue. You should know what these things cost today. For 20 years in corporate America I’d paid taxes, tons of taxes with very little creativity. Meanwhile things changed, and I have to worry about my own scalp. Immigrants are resourceful. This is very simple. Stop living in the clouds and come down to earth.

        Here, my current helper comes from Georgia after winning a lottery. He can’t afford to buy a Healthcare insurance for his family, literally cannot afford it. So his wife stops working, he stops driving for Uber after work and on weekends in order to reduce their income to qualify. Once they’d qualified, they go back to work. This is reality and we, little organisms, aren’t responsible for it. Think, someone, call them government or whatever, makes laws, rules, wars, messes up the whole country, in fact the whole world, and we just have to die now? Why? Are we robots or slaves? Don’t we have an independent mind?

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 8:34 am

      • That’s a lot of excuse coming from someone, especially a plumber.
        The same plumber as i recall on other threads rants about killing all the immigrants on the border and seizing their possessions (if they have any).

        good job.

        wt

        March 27, 2017 at 10:51 am

      • #DeportYakov2017!

        Hermes

        March 27, 2017 at 11:43 am

      • Lol! Lion, some of your commenters disappoint me. I was expecting more, much more.

        Let me spell it out for the ones, who fail to comprehend the basics. When I say that the illegals should be savaged and that immigration should stop, it’s because I beleive it’s for the good of the USA, not out of malice for anyone and not because it benefits me personally. We are all little creatures struggling to survive. On that plane there is no difference between us – legal or illegal, black, or white, or whatever. Primitive people used to ask forgiveness from the spirits of the animals that they had killed and eaten. They understood that we all have equal right to life, it’s just that we have to eat them to survive, just like they have to eat us. This is very profound, I think it something that you, mates, should think about when you eat your meat. It will make you better people. Some think that the whole Universe exists for the benefit of man. Rambam had convincingly explained that everything has its own purpose that it was created for. Other philosophers might have had similar ideas, I don’t know. In light of this we should treat the Universe and everything in it with utmost respect. However, we live as individuals, families, tribes, nations, races, religions and what is good for an individual may be bad for a state. There is tension between these various forms of organization. We all have to straddle them. There is no perfect way, obviously. In my public life I, in my little way, vote for what I think is good for USA or whatever country I happen to live in. In my daily life, as a little, tiny tiny, really tinsky creature, I have to act in my natural interests or I will perish. Obviously, and you have to be realy, realy dumb not to understand this from my comments, I would like to live in a high trust, free, white society of law abiding, conscientious citizens who take their duty seriously. But where am I and where is that society? This is very simple, but so many of you just don’t get it.

        Here I am, my wife has had a rheumatic fever, is pregnant and I cannot buy any insurance. Good doctors don’t take Medicaid, so what to do now? Say you are in that situation, what would you do? So I go full Darwin, I network, I talk to people and people help each other. There is no other way. What’s an ant or a bee? All by himself he is nothing, but together they build colonies. This just so simple.

        Sometimes I think that you mates are stupid. If the colonists exterminated Indians to take their land, you think they were scrupulous about paying taxes? Please….

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 1:45 pm

      • “Good doctors don’t take Medicaid, so what to do now? ”

        Yakov if u r in NYC there are many good docs who take Medicaid. What are you talking about? I have United Health Care Community Plan, which admins Medicaid in NY State. What do you have? Are you for real?

        I’ve always thought that Yakov is a fake Russian immigrant.

        gothamette

        March 29, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    • How are you on Medicaid? You make good money as you never tire of telling us. Are you thinking of Medicare? Or are you just part of the massive fraud that takes place throughout all our government programs, especially Medicaid?

      Andrew E.

      March 26, 2017 at 11:52 pm

      • Explaining, but pay attention because I had explained it in the past and am only doing it for you benefit, mates.

        1. Philosophically speaking is an organism trying to survive in the evolutionary struggle ‘scamming’? Please… use the language that’s appropriate for our discussion.

        2. Now, for I don’t know what time already, I’m not responsible for the cost of living and health care running out of control. Nor am I responsible for ridiculous compensation that is totally inadequate to live and prosper. I’m a little organism doing my thing. That very organism that Darwin had written about.

        3. Technically, as a little creature that I’m, I look at my wherewithal and try to use it in the best way to secure my place under the sun. If I’m not careful, I may just end up a dinosaur. It happens to stronger and smarter ones, why would my fate be any different? Now by being able manage my financial resources resoursfuly and with a bit of luck, I’m able to maintain my taxable income on a level that qualifies me for Medicaid.

        4. Is this moral? Is dying withoit health care moral? We need a separate post for this discussion.

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 8:04 am

    • Alright, I’m calling Yakov’s bluff now. This guy isn’t actually Jewish, he’s some kid from /pol/ trying to make Jews look bad. He’s like every antisemitic negative stereotype rolled into a ball, then multiplied by the latest Wall Street numbers.

      Were you that guy holding the “Da goyim know” sign at that trump rally with the brawling last weekend Yakov?

      Wow, just wow

      March 27, 2017 at 7:25 pm

      • Mate, this doesn’t have more to do with Jews then with any other group. My Jewish identity is purely accidental. I don’t know why you think this has anything to do with Jews. You must have a chip on your shoulders.

        Yakov

        March 28, 2017 at 12:35 am

  2. You think the powers that be are just going to let aggregate health care spending drop from 20% of GDP to 7-9% once we get our beautiful single payer? Hah! Never going to happen. Not while we can deficit spend endlessly. And when we finally can’t anymore so many things will change health care won’t make the top 5 on our list of concerns.

    Andrew E.

    March 26, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    • These numbers don’t make sense. Are you arguing that private insurance triples the costs of medical care? In other words, say an appointment with a doctor would cost $100, but private insurance jacks the price up to $300 (the difference between 7% of GDP and 20% of GDP)?

      If that were the case, medical insurance companies would be the most lucrative businesses in the history of the universe. You could buy their stock, and get rich basically instantly.

      Or perhaps you are saying that everyone in the system is tripling their take. If nurses make, say $60K a year, they should really be earning $20K. Family practice doctors make in the neighborhood of $150K. Do you believe they should really be making $50K? Janitors in the hospital, now making $10/hour, should really be earning $3.33?

      How about the owners of the real estate? The owners of the offices that doctors rent are charging 3X what they should? For instance: my kids’ doctor is in a strip mall, with investment offices next door, and down on the street level shops and restaurants. Are you arguing that the owner of the strip mall is charging 3X per square foot compared to the investment office down the hall?

      Where is the money from this magic tripling of costs (which hasn’t happened in any other industry over the long term in history because its unsustainable) going?

      anon

      anonymousse

      March 27, 2017 at 4:49 am

      • “If that were the case, medical insurance companies would be the most lucrative businesses in the history of the universe. You could buy their stock, and get rich basically instantly.”

        A lot of money is being made in medicine. Surgeons make half a million dollars a year. Hospital CEOs make a million dollars a year. Insurance company CEOs make $25 million per year. And indeed, if you had the forsight to buy Aetna a few years ago, you would have made a lot of money: https://www.google.com/finance?q=aet&ei=5xfZWOm8GIGdUtr1rKgH

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 9:48 am

      • “A lot of money is being made in medicine.”

        I’m not arguing that they aren’t. I’m arguing that 2/3 of the money in medicine isn’t being wasted, and isn’t possible to save.

        “Surgeons make half a million dollars a year.” So does the owner of the car dealership where you bought your last new car. So does the owner of the McDonald’s chain of franchises in your home town. Who deserves it more?

        A quick google search suggests there are 1 million doctors in the US, and 115,000 surgeons. So about 15% of the doctors in the US are surgeons. You are going to cut medical costs by 2/3 by cutting the salary of 15% of doctors (no mention of nurses, technicians, cafeteria workers, secretaries, the other 85% of doctors that aren’t surgeons, etc etc. No mention of equipment costs-Xray machines, needles, bedpans, beds, sheets, etc etc.). Your plan requires a mathematical miracle.

        “Hospital CEOs make a million dollars a year.” So does the basketball/football coach at your state college. The president of your state college may make in the neighborhood of that. Could your state college cut its budget by 66% and provide the same services?

        “Insurance company CEOs make $25 million per year.” So do basketball players. So do the CEOs of computer companies and successful web startups. The CEO of GM makes 28 million. The president makes 11 million. Could GM cut its budget by 66% and provide the same products?

        Be honest. We could eliminate paperwork, improve efficiency, reduce profit, and save perhaps (I don’t believe this, but will concede it for the sake of argument) 10% of the cost of health care in the United States. That would be in the ballpark of what happens in other industries (cost cutting measures at GM, improved efficiency in the local public schools, reducing military spending, etc etc).

        Reducing spending in any organization, in any company, or even in any family by 66% would be utterly catastrophic. Health care isn’t the magic exception.

        anon

        anonymousse

        March 27, 2017 at 10:10 am

      • The pricing is opaque because the industry is implicitly forced to have the productive white middle class pay for the health care of the poor and the illegals. The industry is one massive cost-shifting operation. This makes it inefficient, to say the least.

        Critics of our current insurance model are correct about the massive inefficiencies and administrative bloat. I’ve seen stats showing that most of the growth in our health care spending over the last 2-3 decades has gone almost entirely to medical bureaucracy in health care providers, insurers, pharma and govt. Advocates for single payer say all this can stripped away with the greater efficiency that comes without the insurance model. Of course, this would mean 10-12% drop in GDP, ie. depression levels, to bring health care spending in line with other Western nations. The idea that the govt/corporate complex would just allow this to happen when it isn’t necessary (because dollar is still reserve currency) I think is absurd.

        Also, when other nations spend only 7-9% GDP on single payer they have to ration which means telling old people to die off and in America it would mean telling whitey to sit down and shut up as we take care of the minorities and illegals. We also subsidize their pharma with our R&D which eases their burdens. So all the comparisons to other First World single payer systems are moot in my opinion.

        The alternative to single payer isn’t what we have now but a fully de-cartelized medical industry with costs reduced to where we spend only 3% of GDP and no rationing is needed. This requires an even bigger short term collapse of the economy but we’d at least be explicitly choosing that if we went this route. Plus health care would advance much quicker and further over time than single payer.

        Andrew E.

        March 27, 2017 at 10:24 am

  3. Medicaid reimbursement rates are so low that doctors would lose money if all their patients went on medicaid. In effect non-medicaid patients subsidize medicaid patients.

    Medicaid for everyone would only work if reimbursement rates were raised.

    Jimi

    March 26, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    • If Medicaid were the only payer in town, doctors would have to take what they pay or find other jobs.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 26, 2017 at 11:42 pm

      • What do you do when they go on strike?

        Dsgntd_plyr

        March 27, 2017 at 12:05 am

      • That simply isn’t true, which you can see for yourself by taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

        If medicaid was the only game in town and medicaid reimbursed doctors literally $10 for a 5hr spinal fusion surgery, nobody would be getting spinal fusion surgeries under medicaid. I hope you can agree with that?

        Likewise, if you could only charge $10 for an MRI nobody would buy million dollar MRI machines. I mean, this is obvious. You can’t have expensive things if you don’t pony up the money for them…

        Doing a spine surgery for a whopping ten bucks just isn’t worthwhile for anyone and neither is doing a spine surgery for whatever it is medicaid pays you. Ain’t nobody gonna work for nothin’ lion, not even doctors. If the government could simply wave a magic wand and pay doctors fast food wages and still have a healthcare system standing at the end of the day, they’d have done it already.

        sfd@asf.com

        March 27, 2017 at 12:15 am

      • This is a straw man argument, no one is reimbursing only $10 for an operation.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 12:57 am

      • Young doctors couldn’t quit because they owe too much money. But older doctors would retire as it was no longer worth it. And fewer young people would go to medical school. So there would be a doctor shortage. Which would be filled with doctors from 3rd world countries.

        destructure

        March 27, 2017 at 12:19 am

      • There would still be people with better insurance or just lots of money. You would get a two tier system.

        Rosenmops

        March 27, 2017 at 12:36 am

      • It’s not a straw man argument, it’s an illustrative example. It was claimed that it doesn’t matter how poorly medicaid reimburses doctors because if it’s the only game in town, they will be forced to take it. The example I gave with the $10 dollars was to prove that this is obviously untrue; the amount of money that medicaid reimburses is extremely important regardless of whether medicaid is “the only game in town.”

        So we have established that in a hellish healthcare system where medicaid is the only option under penalty of law, you won’t be getting a spine surgery for $10. In fact, you won’t be getting a spine surgery for anything less than some arbitrary “X” amount of money, where X is a dollar figure which makes it worthwhile for the surgeon and hospital to provide that service to you. And sadly, the amount of money shitty medicaid pays doctors is much less than X, which is why medicaid is just about useless today and will be exactly as useless tomorrow under any possible legislative paradigm shift. If you eliminate private insurance and force medicaid on everyone, you will also eliminate the healthcare system. Simple as that.

        sfd@asf.com

        March 27, 2017 at 4:53 am

      • “This is a straw man argument, no one is reimbursing only $10 for an operation”

        It actually is possible. Medicaid, besides having the lowest reimbursement rates in US healthcare, also, just like insurance companies and Medicare, modify their rates depending on on various other factors. It honestly isn’t a joke: Doctors have been paid ten bucks or less for a surgery after it’s all said and done.

        Mike Street Station

        March 27, 2017 at 8:10 am

      • Israel has universal health care and its very hard to get into a medical school. Many go to Italy and Romania for med school. Few physicians will be flying private planes and sailing in private yachts, but this isn’t what medicine is all about. The system will adjust. It’s usually more profitable to own a pizza shop or two then to be a doctor on the average.

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

    • If Medicaid were the only payer in town, doctors would have to take what they pay or find other jobs.

      Health care is overly expensive because of government involvement. More free market pricing incentives are the answer, not giving more power to Progressives who thought up Obamacare.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 27, 2017 at 12:04 am

      • There was never free-market pricing in healthcare. You can’t have a free market when a guy is dying from a heart attack.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 12:56 am

      • Most health care spending is on extending the last six months of life. Not people dying from heart attacks. Almost all of this money spent is useless.

        JW Bell

        March 27, 2017 at 1:02 am

      • Yes, we need to get that under control, but that’s when Republicans went crazy with “death panels.”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 1:03 am

      • You might have said it. Healthcare beyond the basics could very well be a consumption good like residential neighborhoods and schools. The wealthy will get better service and less wait times for treatments. The truly wealthy receive utmost personal attention when it comes to medical care. Some even flying out of state to receive medical attention. San Diego, for example has one of the best healthcare facilities in the entire nation, that savvy, well to do Manhattanites would fly out there for serious medical care, while enjoying the great weather. On a side related note, status among SWPLs are more subtly divided than that of proles, which becomes obvious to readers here. It’s the Hamptons vs Dark Harbor, it’s Stuyvesant Town vs an East Village walkup….tenement walkups are generally for prolier types with lower incomes.

        JS

        March 27, 2017 at 2:08 am

      • Most health care spending is on extending the last six months of life. Not people dying from heart attacks. Almost all of this money spent is useless.

        This is the dumbest stat. Unless you die from an accident, the 6 months before you die are when you are going to be the sickest. But there’s usually no alert that goes off informing you you’ll be dead at the end of those 6 months.

        And if the implication is that hospitals and doctors pad bills by keeping terminally ill patients alive as long as possible, in my family’s experience, that wasn’t the case. If anything, they took the opposite tack.

        Dave Pinsen

        March 27, 2017 at 3:50 am

      • This is retarded. America is the only developed country with grubby middlemen.

        ‘Free market’ pricing for healthcare belongs in somalia.

        Revelation: There is no such thing as a ‘free market’. Thats more of a social construction than magic negro or sports teams.

        The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

        March 27, 2017 at 7:31 am

      • Yes, we need to get that under control, but that’s when Republicans went crazy with “death panels.”

        If we can’t get that under control with 50 million people on medicare then what makes you think we can when there’s 300 million on medicare? I don’t think most people object to death panels. They object to being forced into a government system with death panels.

        It’s like public education. No one prefers public schools to private schools. But when most people are given the choice they go to public schools. Do you know why? Because most private schools start at 10K per year. Public schools do, too. But it’s paid out of taxes which people are forced to pay whether they want to or not. And once a program starts people don’t want to cancel it. Even though it’s not their preference and they didn’t want to start it in the first place. That’s how government programs destroy private industries. It’s creeping socialism. And that’s exactly how the communists envisioned taking over.

        I have relatives who grew up under communism. When the government runs everything then everything is corrupt. Everything is done with favors, cronyism, bribes, blackmail, black markets and organized crime. You can’t even buy basic groceries without bribes. That’s what communism really is. Is that really what you want?

        destructure

        March 27, 2017 at 9:50 am

      • “If we can’t get that under control with 50 million people on medicare then what makes you think we can when there’s 300 million on medicare?”

        The additional 250 million will be under the age of 65 and won’t be in their last 6 months of life. So I don’t see what one has to do with the other.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 9:55 am

      • No, I want the U.S. Post Office, which runs at a profit and provides first class mail service to all for less money than Fedex or UPS, but people who want super-premium delivery still have the option to pay a lot more for the private service.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 9:57 am

      • “Do you know why? Because most private schools start at 10K per year.”

        In western, upper middle class suburbs of Boston, some of the best public schools in the country spend about 13 K per year per student. This is less expensive than comparable private schools. Moreover, the public schools manage to do it despite paying their teachers better than the private ones do. Based on that, I would say that there are some things government does more efficiently than the private sector does.

        WRB

        March 27, 2017 at 10:19 am

      • “But there’s usually no alert that goes off informing you you’ll be dead at the end of those 6 months.”

        I’ll bet the doctors know though. Maybe not every time but most times.

        “And if the implication is that hospitals and doctors pad bills by keeping terminally ill patients alive as long as possible, in my family’s experience, that wasn’t the case. If anything, they took the opposite tack.”

        I know an ICU nurse who suspects some doctors are doing that. She’s also mentioned that some families demand a dying relative be kept alive as long as possible to get another couple of social security checks.

        destructure

        March 27, 2017 at 10:31 am

      • @Leon — “The additional 250 million will be under the age of 65 and won’t be in their last 6 months of life. So I don’t see what one has to do with the other.

        So you want to turn it into another ponzi scheme like social security where the young are forced to support the previous generation. How convenient given that you’re late middle age.

        No, I want the U.S. Post Office, which runs at a profit and provides first class mail service to all for less money than Fedex or UPS,

        The post office has lost over $60 Billion in the last 10 years.

        destructure

        March 27, 2017 at 1:24 pm

      • Misinformation.

        USPS made $1 billion in profit last year.

        http://www.newsweek.com/post-office-aint-broken-its-profit-so-why-fix-it-397788

        Profits could increase more if Congress would allow USPS to stop Saturday delivery.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 2:00 pm

      • @WRB — In western, upper middle class suburbs of Boston, some of the best public schools in the country spend about 13 K per year per student.

        And inner city housing projects have some of the worst pubic schools in the country and spend about 13K per year per student. What do you think that means?

        This is less expensive than comparable private schools.

        If those private schools were really comparable then parents wouldn’t be paying thousands when the public schools are “free”.

        destructure

        March 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      • Even the best private school would turn to crap if 100% of the students were inner-city ghetto youth.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 2:02 pm

      • Every heart attack can be broken down into subcomponents including complications. So just because someone can’t plan their heart attack doesn’t mean prices can’t be posted in advance. If they were it wouldn’t be an unreasonable number instead of the price gouging we have today.

        So your argument is a straw man. Not unlike the typical shilling that the healthcare industry does to prevent real price discover.

        That being said the angle we should focus on is the 20% of GDP angle. The Feds would never allow such a violent economic correction to occurs. We’ve done ten times more to prevent one tenth of that.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        March 27, 2017 at 2:30 pm

      • Misinformation. USPS made $1 billion in profit last year.

        The USPS has lost $60 billion over the last 10 years. Their own website admits they’ve lost over 10 billion in the last 2 years. The pension is a cost of doing business.

        https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2015/pr15_060.htm
        https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2016/pr16_092.htm

        I know you love big government. But you need to stop trying to turn the USA into the USSA and leave that free government cheese for the poor.

        “Even the best private school would turn to crap if 100% of the students were inner-city ghetto youth.”

        That was my point.

        destructure

        March 27, 2017 at 4:08 pm

      • There was never free-market pricing in healthcare. You can’t have a free market when a guy is dying from a heart attack.

        Catastrophic medical expenses are an excuse to socialize mundane expenses that would be best paid for in cash. Only catastrophic illnesses should be picked up by government.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 27, 2017 at 6:10 pm

      • Yes it takes advantage of a population that is never taught basic probability and statistics and weaponizes it into Marxism.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

        March 28, 2017 at 12:11 am

  4. Medicare sets price controls which normally result in shortages and rationing. Medicare patients don’t feel it now because the costs are shifted to other patients. But if every patient is on Medicare then who will they shift the costs to?

    destructure

    March 26, 2017 at 11:19 pm

  5. Keep in mind that having different segments of the population on these different plans skews the costs. Once you account for the confounding variables (e.g., age, education/income as they impact both health costs and what plans people are on), the savings would be even more dramatic than they appear at first blush.

    Sadly, our congressmen are dumb… I’d be shocked if single payer or UBI are instituted during our lifetimes, as obvious as it is that they would greatly benefit society in many ways. (I’d personally lose financially if they were to be instituted.)

    anon

    March 26, 2017 at 11:45 pm

  6. So why can’t scrap our private-insurance-based health system and just go with Medicaid?

    Because the people who want universal insurance are usually the same people who designed the screwball Obamacare system – Obamacare which is such a bureaucratic mess that it actually is not a welfare program but a very poorly run, very expensive, private insurance program:

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/the-end-of-week-circulars-for-march-26-2017/

    Many believe repeal will be almost impossible to pull off because Obamacare is an entitlement. This is incorrect. Obamacare is not an entitlement because its insurance offerings are expensive for the non-poor. In reality, Obamacare for everyone modestly above the poverty line is very costly private insurance designed according to poorly thought out, government imposed, specifications.

    Because Obamacare is not welfare it remains vulnerable to repeal in the future.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 27, 2017 at 12:01 am

  7. The per enrollee spending is $5,790/year, not $3,247. US per capita income is $47,669. So if enrolling everyone in Medicaid wouldn’t increase costs that’s 12.1% of pretax income. In other words, most people can pay for 100% of their healthcare expenses out of pocket.

    Insurance is overrated:
    1. Every citizen gets a Medicare card to track out of pocket expenses. Foreigners have to buy private ER coverage.
    2. Spend 10% of your income above double the poverty level*, and the government splits the cost 50-50.
    3. Spend 20% and the feds cover 100%.
    4. Repeal Obamacare.
    5. Win reelection.

    *For low income people nothing changes.

    Dsgntd_plyr

    March 27, 2017 at 12:02 am

    • EDIT: 6. Add co-pays as necessary to prevent over use of services.

      Dsgntd_plyr

      March 27, 2017 at 12:07 am

  8. All countries in the world with public health insurance, has also private system. The reason is that once you have to cover everybody you do need to do some compromises in the quality of the service and the covered medicines, unless you want to raise taxes to very high level. So having the option for complimentary health insurance actually helps a lot. The upper middle class and above it will usually purchase one, this gives them better service and reduce the pressure from the public system.

    Hashed

    March 27, 2017 at 12:49 am

    • I’m not opposed to people who can afford it paying more for better healthcare. (Although many on the left ARE opposed to it.)

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 27, 2017 at 12:58 am

      • I’m not opposed to that either but I think it might be better to tie them in to the same system as the rest of us so they have an incentive to make it work well.

        27 year old from sailers

        March 27, 2017 at 9:10 am

    • In Canada a lot of people have an “extended health” plan through work. It does NOT give you better access to doctors or hospitals and does not reduce the pressure on the public system. It covers things such as dentistry and eye exams that are not covered at all by the public system (unless you are a refugee–then everything is free. ) It also covers drugs from the pharmacy.

      I have never heard of anyone in Canada who has a fancier medical plan other than extended health. Even if there were such a thing where would you use it? All the hospitals are public hospitals with wait lists.

      Some rich people in Canada do, however, travel to the US for health care.

      Rosenmops

      March 27, 2017 at 1:31 am

      • Canada forbids people from buying better healthcare. That doesn’t mean the U.S. system has to be like that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 9:39 am

      • this is why it’s important the gop write the public option bill. the democrats would have to appease the far-left , and outlaw things that shouldn’t be outlawed.

      • It is surprising to hear that there are no private hospitals in Canada, I have been living in couple of countries where paying for public healthcare is mandatory, however there is also a private system. In Australia it is even more interesting, you have to pay 1% tax to the public system but above certain bracket you have to pay 2% or you can use 1% to purchase your own private insurance. The private insurance can both give you complimentary services not covered by the public insurance but usually will give you also an option to do certain procedures in a private hospital or upgrade the service in a public hospital, like an option to choose the operating doctor or having your own room. I think it is a pretty good system, the public healthcare is decent but the rich can buy what they want, which is fine by me.

        Hashed

        March 27, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    • Yes that should be an optiin. No public health sytem covers boob implants or orthodontics in full to my knowledge.

      Nhs only gives liposuction to life threatened.

      But the economics say obese people should have stomachs stapled by the gov to save a and e costs.

      Very tough philosophical questions abound in healthcare.

      Almost all of the correct answers are giveb in the nordic countries.

      Lets be frank. Americans dont have single payer because the blacks.

      The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

      March 27, 2017 at 7:34 am

      • “Lets be frank. Americans dont have single payer because the blacks”

        This is probably true. When Canada brought in universal health care it was pretty much all white. Same with Europe. No one wants to support a large underclass of a different race.

        Rosenmops

        March 27, 2017 at 10:58 am

      • “No one wants to support a large underclass of a different race.”

        However, the underclass already had free healthcare before Obamacare. Obama wanted to extend health coverage to regular working people.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 12:45 pm

    • I’d lived in Russia and Israel and both had universal health care. Nothing like American, but good enough. In my days in Israel the enrollment was mandatory. I could easily afford it for my 7 years there. So all this back and forth is pure nonsense. There are powerful financial interests that want people to be dying like animals and paying exorbitant premiums. This is very simple.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2017 at 8:44 am

    • Does Cuba allow an auxiliary private healthcare system?

      CamelCaseRob

      March 27, 2017 at 9:51 am

  9. Yeah, you’d have to have some blue ribbon panel set reasonable fees. There’s already been a trend of med-school eligible young people becoming dentists instead. I know one personally.

    Explainer 21

    March 27, 2017 at 1:30 am

  10. Repeal birthright citizenship and put welfare queens and their useless spawn on birthcontrol first.

    Mayor of Space

    March 27, 2017 at 3:42 am

    • Well, he explains with numbers what I understood by keeping my ear to the ground. I had said earlier that there are powerful financial interests that control the healthcare business. He is right. The situation is hopeless at this point.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2017 at 8:28 pm

      • Or maybe this is worse: Alien UFO Invasion Fleet Will Reach Earth In September 2017

        http://reflectionofmind.org/alien-ufo-invasion-fleet-will-reach-earth-september-2017-trump-allegedly-warns-putin-nasa-detected-miles-wide-armada-spaceships-entered-solar-system-video/

        Perhaps the fleet of aliens will arrive in 9-11 later this year.

        JS

        March 27, 2017 at 9:54 pm

      • I would believe it, except that previous reports of alien invasions always proved to be false. As Scotty once said on a Star Trek episode “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 10:16 pm

      • Maybe they will be benign aliens. You would think if they could reach earth, they are very evolved and would look as us a petty beings who need enlightenment.

        On the other hand, hostile invasions are of 2 possibilities. V type extraterrestrials who are pretend to be friendly and good nature (by disguising themselves as humans in the series), or Independence Day, where aliens are outright repulsive and sinister.

        JS

        March 27, 2017 at 10:49 pm

      • Third possibility is District 9 aliens.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 11:11 pm

      • I’m sure the Dems will welcome our new alien overlords. As trusted media people, they will be able to recruit more workers for the salt mines and chlorophyll production quotas.

        map

        March 28, 2017 at 6:22 am

  11. Serious question: why do you think this would change much of anything? For example (the numbers are made up, the concept is valid):

    current system:
    75% of people have health insurance
    25% don’t.

    Everybody gets health care, though. Those with health insurance do so ‘properly.’ They go to doctor, file paperwork with insurance companies, pay their copay, and so on.

    Those without go to the emergency room, get the same care, but then either don’t pay or pay a small part of the cost. The remaining expenses are hidden in the system so that insurance companies and the first 75% end up paying for it (through slightly higher costs for everything).

    Everyone has medicare:
    100% of people have health insurance (i.e. medicare).

    The only difference is how the expenses are distributed. The overall expenses are going to be very similar (same doctors, same nurses, same buildings, same medical equipment, same drugs, and so on). There will be minor savings in that people won’t go to the emergency room-they’ll go to an appropriate doctor for an appropriate condition. But in the grand scheme of things, that will be a minor cost savings.

    In other words: the indigent or working poor are still not going to pay for their health care. The only significant difference is that now, you and I pay for it in a hidden manner (my hospital bed costs $800 a night, because its also paying for the indigent care offered in the emergency room downstairs). Under medicare, its paid for in a public manner (my hospital bed now costs $700, but my taxes have gone up to pay for the indigent care offered in the emergency room downstairs-and the minor savings comes because the indigent don’t have to go to the emergency room-they go to a clinic. Maybe I pay 70$ in taxes as a result instead of the $100 cost added to my hospital bed under the current system).

    I can accept that reducing the paperwork necessary to process insurance, and reducing a few incidental costs (people won’t go to the emergency room, which is expensive, for minor conditions if they are able to go to non-emergency clinics) will reduce costs to some degree.

    But what makes you think substantial changes are going to occur?

    Is there any other industry or business that could really enjoy the level of cost savings that everyone thinks is possible in the medical industry? There’s a comment, above, that argues we could cut medical costs down by 2/3 (from 20% of GDP to 7% of GDP). Is this feasible, based on your experience with the cost of any other human activity?

    With every other government program, we argue that we can eliminate paperwork and unnecessary spending, and reduce the costs to some degree. Or, we argue that we can reduce costs by eliminating the service (cut spending to NEA, or eliminate-remove the service itself-costs associated with the B-1 bomber, and so on).

    But nowhere else do we argue that we can get the same or better service and cut 2/3 of the money.
    We argue that we don’t need such a large military-not that we could save 66% of the defense budget and have the same military. Noone believes that we could eliminate 2/3 of the public school budget and provide the same service (by eliminating paperwork and removing for profit purchasing of pencils and school lunch food). We can’t cut EPA spending by 2/3 and have the same EPA. We can cut EPA spending and have a lesser EPA, though.

    So why in the world do you think that simply rearranging who pays, and how bills are paid, is going to save that much money?

    anon

    anonymousse

    March 27, 2017 at 5:12 am

    • Good comment.

      CamelCaseRob

      March 27, 2017 at 9:59 am

    • I don’t think it will save a lot of money. Indeed the insurance companies work to keep costs down by making sure they don’t pay out one dime more than they have to. And the profit and overhead of private insurance is only about 4% of total healthcare expenditures. The government, on the other hand, is pay first and maybe ask questions later, but probably never.

      I also think that taking the profit motive away from medical device and drug manufacturers will result in less innovation. Who’s going to bother making the next MRI or breakthrough drug if they can’t profit handsomely from it? Research is a very risky investment. Government could promote it by limiting legal liability of developers, but we know that’s not going to happen. Insurance companies suck, but lawyers suck more.

      I have come around to general support of the Lion Plan, but it’s not a sure thing that it will make things much better overall.

      steve@steve.com

      March 27, 2017 at 6:48 pm

  12. The commenters are right. Health care is like airline tickets, there is massive price discrimination. Some people pay $200 for a ticket, some people pay $2000, but the plane is going to the same destination. If you move more people to economy class from business class, the economy rate has to change. There is obviously some wiggle room but it’s not a fix.

    Karmakazy

    March 27, 2017 at 6:48 am

  13. Yeah, Lion has gone straight to fantasyland. Lion that might be great for an all-White country, but here in everyone but White people land, that will start the Civil War. White people cannot get aid even if they’re starving but Syrians and Africans get a free rent and 3000 or so in stipends for food and other expenses. The White taxpayers have not failed to notice. Uncle Sham is getting more obvious with the favoritism everyday. White people and citizens are working two jobs and taking boarders, and freeloaders are driving brand new cars. That socialist world is about to burn down.

    Joshua Sinistar

    March 27, 2017 at 7:46 am

  14. I think the commentators here who argue that the healthcare system couldn’t afford Medicaid rates if those were the only rates in town are largely correct. Everyone on private insurance is subsidizing Medicaid (and to a lessor degree Medicare) with their higher reimbursement rates. Without that, the healthcare system as constituted would severely contract.

    I think there is a partial solution to that however. If you are going to have a Medicaid for all or at least Medicaid for a lot more, you need to have a two tiered Medicaid system, where you have one that’s more or less like traditional Medicaid, no co-pays, deductibles, or premiums, and a Medicaid for higher income earners (like your working class and lower middle class): add co-pays to the fee schedule, and roll them into the provider reimbursement.

    Example: An office visit that regular insurance might reimburse for 40 dollars a doctor on Medicaid might get 5 or 6 dollars. Add a 20 dollar copay and you’ve greatly increased the doctor’s reimbursement, and the best part is that it’s all done without any additional spending from the Federal or State government.

    Mike Street Station

    March 27, 2017 at 8:21 am

    • Medicaid doctors know to bill. Check this out. I take 3 of my daughter’s for a routine blood test before sending them to summer camp. The docs bill? $800.00 each! Why? Because he says they CAN benefit from a complete blood test. He has a very nice house and is a very nice guy. He just does what he has to survive. The ones that survive always did it, are doing it now and will always do it in the future. This is very simple. Darwin.

      Incidentally, Russian health care has collapsed. Totally. People are dying. I’m selling my Russian stocks at the next spike. The market is becoming unsafe.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2017 at 10:37 am

      • Russia is a dysfunctional country in more ways than healthcare.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 10:42 am

      • That’s obvious, but it isn’t relevant to what we are talking about here.

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 10:52 am

      • I don’t doubt the doctor bills $800. But he can bill a million dollars and Medicaid is only going to reimburse according to their fee schedule. The way doctors get around low Medicaid reimbursements is volume. I used to work for a Public Health Department and when we would refer out pregnancy cases, the “regular”doctors would get 20 to 30 patients at a time. They have a fixed fee for the entire pregnancy and delivery, and the only way to come out ahead is to see as many patients as humanly possible.

        Mike Street Station

        March 27, 2017 at 10:58 am

      • True, volume is the key, but don’t discount the billing. If a blood test is $75 and he bills $800 for the full test, he is gonna get his $75.

        I remember when I was 16 and had just come to this country, they had 60 minutes program on the life and work of a Medicaid doctor. He was the only one they found willing to openly talk to them. So this guy was a gynecologist spending on the average 4 minutes with a patient, his wife was a pharmacist and he was channeling all prescription to her pharmacy. They had a beautiful home, expensive vacations, private flying lessons, private yacht. In short, a doctor’s dream life. Medicaid has significant reduced its payments, but they still make money by rapidly processing crowds. Incidents, the doctor was black and so were all the patients.

        My friends fly to Ukraine for serious dental work. Beautiful work done by the best doctors for ridiculously low fees. Very affordable.

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm

      • Oh, I forgot the best part: the doctor was making over 1 million a year, and that was in 1978 when a million was real money!

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at 5:52 pm

    • @Mike,

      I’ve often thought of that. Medicare/Medicaid for all, but institute means-testing for income (not assets). That’s totally fair. The evidence is that co-pays reduce consumption, ditto deductibles. It’s not only fair, it’s doable.

      What is not doable – but should be – is charging people for medical history. I don’t mean pre-existing conditions, but things that can be controlled, such as smoking and obesity. People who consciously mess up their health should pay more.

      BTW, something that’s not being discussed here is that medical insurance doesn’t pay for accidents, mostly. Does anyone here know that?

      gothamette

      March 29, 2017 at 6:08 pm

      • A lot of employer sponsored health plans already have smoking surcharges for their health plans, so there is a precedent, but of course doing that for any public insurance would lead to cries of discrimination so that seems less likely. Although I suggested something similar for selective service.

        Medical Insurance does pay for accidents unless there is some other insurance out there. If you’re in a car accident, your health plan is going to assume you have car insurance that will be paying some amount (and you probably do have car insurance so…it’s a reasonable assumption). So your health insurance will only pay after the auto insurance pays out.

        Mike Street Station

        March 29, 2017 at 9:16 pm

      • I really don’t know a lot about this but when I got injured in an accident (no big, just a broken wrist) I learned that insurance companies love to offload as much as possible onto any other entity. My medical bills were paid for by worker’s comp.

        gothamette

        March 30, 2017 at 5:27 pm

  15. There are two commenters that had praise for the Cuban healthcare. Amazing.
    https://www.google.com/amp/blog.acton.org/archives/90402-the-truth-about-cubas-health-care-system.html/amp

    Yakov

    March 27, 2017 at 2:51 pm

  16. What I find really amazing is how everyone, even the Left, has turned into a bean-counter over health care. I can understand why Republicans do this, but why do Democrats as well? Health care is the only area of medicine that Democrats are suddenly concerned about costs, when, in no other area do they generate an equivalent amount of noise…except the military.

    Gee, what do the military and the health care system have in common that drives the Democrat concern over costs? Both institutions serve the White people that Democrats hate so much and want to replace. So, any medical reform they propose is going to be designed to hurt White people as much as possible.

    Which brings us to the three pillars of Democrat medical reform.

    1) Dumb people should practice medicine as a way of reducing costs.
    2) Rationing of health care should be practiced at the moment when you really need it.
    3) Dumb people should be rationing your health care.

    Any reform that approaches these results is ultimately anti-White. In the mean time, getting access to high-quality care in a timely manner is not an issue for most people, though it is expensive.

    International comparisons are meaningless. Canada’s, Europe’s and Israel’s health care systems are not self-sufficient. They depend heavily on importing American medical technology. What they achieve in cost-savings comes at the expense of Americans.

    map

    March 27, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    • I don’t think all the cost saving in Canada is the result of importing American technology. Our hospitals and doctor’s offices look quite low-rent compared to what i see on American TV. They are very basic.

      Also I don’t think doctors are paid as much in Canada, and for most things, including childbirth, we just see a GP. You have to have so unusual condition to see a specialist, even an OB-Gyn or pediatrician. For things such as childhood vaccinations we see a community nurse.

      Rosenmop

      March 27, 2017 at 6:54 pm

      • “For things such as childhood vaccinations we see a community nurse.”

        That should be the case. Why do you need a highly trained doctor for a routine vaccination for a healthy child?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at 6:59 pm

      • Most people in America should only require basic health care, but because it’s nature is grounded on frivolous consumption and excessive hedonism, many of its citizens get into unhealthy lifestyles and require serious medical attention.

        JS

        March 27, 2017 at 8:41 pm

      • I think every pregnancy is handled by an OB-GYN in the US. I imagine a general practioner handling pregnancy only happens in very rural areas with only one doctor in town

        Mike Street Station

        March 28, 2017 at 8:38 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: