Denmark tells Bernie to STFU

[Cubs79]

Obamacare is universal coverage because no one is denied coverage. If you dont make any money you can get subsidies to pay for it.

Medicaid is administered by private insurers paid for by the state. It's the largest growth in their market over the last 10 years.

Bernie has said multiple times that he wants to outlaw private health insurance.

Obamacare is not universal coverage, you are simply making up your own definition for things.

Medicaid is still funded by the government, even if they contract it out it is still a government funded program.

Bernie's plan does not ban supplemental insurance.

 

[Crazyhole]

Obamacare is not universal coverage, you are simply making up your own definition for things.

Medicaid is still funded by the government, even if they contract it out it is still a government funded program.

Bernie's plan does not ban supplemental insurance.

So Medicaid is the same kind of system that the scandinavian countries use.

 

[UCFKnight85]

For those curious. Medicare administrative cost is $11 per user per month.

Private insurance administrative cost is $60 per user per month.

If all 350,000,000 Americans were on Medicare the cost would be under 4B per month. On private insurance it is 21B per month we would save 500,000,000 per day on administrative costs alone assuming we gain zero economies of scale.

What a stupid comparison. Medicare literally regulates what it will and will not provide, it rations, and it has a whopping 44M people on its' enrollment.

Oh, and there's that tiny fact that they had to roll out Medicare Advantage private plans to supplement Medicare since it was so insufficient for so many people, even with a low enrollment count and fairly homogeneous patient populace.

And guess what? MA plans spend more per person than Medicare. Why? Because Medicare rations service and delays service when needed to fit everyone into the budgeted, fixed amount that it has. So people are forced to roll into private MA plans to get the actual service and treatment, on time, that they need and (WOW!) that costs more.

Please keep pushing MFA and the Sanders doctrine. This is the easiest thing to shoot down in politics and we thank you clowns for pushing it. Even Paul F'ing Krugman wrote an Op Ed today trying to assure people it'd "never actually pass". It's that bad.

 

[Cubs79]

So Medicaid is the same kind of system that the scandinavian countries use.

And is a similar type of system that Bernie Sanders is proposing, what exactly are you arguing?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Obamacare is not universal coverage, you are simply making up your own definition for things.

Medicaid is still funded by the government, even if they contract it out it is still a government funded program.

Bernie's plan does not ban supplemental insurance.

But why wouldn't it ban supp insurance? You've all assured me that the tax increases would be OK since the medical cost savings would be so awesome, and care provided so awesome, that MFA is worth it! Woo!

Surely you're not suggesting that the care provided under MFA may be so subpar and so inadequate compared to care that I receive today, that I may need to buy private supp insurance to get back to par on delivery of health care????

And if so, why the hell would you push for MFA, if any "savings" (which is a myth) you're getting are pissed away anyways when you have to buy private insurance on top of your asinine tax burden?

 

[Crazyhole]

Section 107 says that once the four-year period is up, it "it shall be unlawful for — (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or Section 201 details benefits the government plan would offer. The flip side is that this is a long list of benefits that private companies would be barred from covering: "(1) Hospital services, including inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs ; (2) Ambulatory patient services ; (3) Primary and preventive services, including chronic disease management ; (4) Prescription drugs, medical devices, biological products, including outpatient prescription drugs, medical devices, and biological products ; (5) Mental health and substance abuse treatment services, including inpatient care ; (6) Laboratory and diagnostic services ; (7) Comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care ; (8) Pediatrics ; (9) Oral health, audiology, and vision services ; (10) Short-term rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices."

 

[Cubs79]

Section 107 says that once the four-year period is up, it "it shall be unlawful for — (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or Section 201 details benefits the government plan would offer. The flip side is that this is a long list of benefits that private companies would be barred from covering: "(1) Hospital services, including inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs ; (2) Ambulatory patient services ; (3) Primary and preventive services, including chronic disease management ; (4) Prescription drugs, medical devices, biological products, including outpatient prescription drugs, medical devices, and biological products ; (5) Mental health and substance abuse treatment services, including inpatient care ; (6) Laboratory and diagnostic services ; (7) Comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care ; (8) Pediatrics ; (9) Oral health, audiology, and vision services ; (10) Short-term rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices."

Nothing in that says anything about banning supplemental insurance, it bans duplicate coverage.

 

[Cubs79]

But why wouldn't it ban supp insurance? You've all assured me that the tax increases would be OK since the medical cost savings would be so awesome, and care provided so awesome, that MFA is worth it! Woo!

Surely you're not suggesting that the care provided under MFA may be so subpar and so inadequate compared to care that I receive today, that I may need to buy private supp insurance to get back to par on delivery of health care????

And if so, why the hell would you push for MFA, if any "savings" (which is a myth) you're getting are pissed away anyways when you have to buy private insurance on top of your asinine tax burden?

I am not suggesting anything, I am just giving you facts. How you want to interpret those facts is up to you.

 

[Crazyhole]

Nothing in that says anything about banning supplemental insurance, it bans duplicate coverage.

Outside of the things listed, what kind of supplemental insurance would exist? It can't cover any hospital care or pharmaceuticals. Face it, his plan bans private insuranc .

 

[UCFKnight85]

I am not suggesting anything, I am just giving you facts. How you want to interpret those facts is up to you.

That's exactly what I did, and it's pretty apparent what I said is accurate. You only allow private plans if you know care under MFA would be a downgrade from what we currently have. This is why Canada has such a boom in private supp insurance plans right now, but people are finally asking why the hell they're paying so much in taxes if they have to supplement their government are just to be seen by a doctor or time.

 

[Cubs79]

That's exactly what I did, and it's pretty apparent what I said is accurate. You only allow private plans if you know care under MFA would be a downgrade from what we currently have. This is why Canada has such a boom in private supp insurance plans right now, but people are finally asking why the hell they're paying so much in taxes if they have to supplement their government are just to be seen by a doctor or time.

If that was the case then supplemental insurance wouldn't exist today, yet it does.

 

[Cubs79]

Outside of the things listed, what kind of supplemental insurance would exist? It can't cover any hospital care or pharmaceuticals. Face it, his plan bans private insuranc .

It covers a lot for sure (which is a good thing BTW), but if there is need for supplemental insurance for certain things, it does not ban that.

 

[fried-chicken]

Outside of the things listed, what kind of supplemental insurance would exist? It can't cover any hospital care or pharmaceuticals. Face it, his plan bans private insuranc .

What supplemental coverage would be needed?

 

[UCFKnight85]

If that was the case then supplemental insurance wouldn't exist today, yet it does.

That's exactly my point. Read a few posts back. Medicare Advantage has boomed in popularity since Medicare patients are so unhappy with the base care provided under Medicare. MA is a private insurance plan.

 

[fried-chicken]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the need for supplemental private insurance when there are no deductibles, co-pays, premiums, out of pocket expense and vision and dental coverage included.

Theres literally nothing left to insure unless you want plastic surgery insurance or something

 

[Crazyhole]

What supplemental coverage would be needed?

It wouldn't be, that's why his bill bans it. Of course that means we are hoping that the government doesnt deny any kind of treatment on any individual basis.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the need for supplemental private insurance when there are no deductibles, co-pays, premiums, out of pocket expense and vision and dental coverage included.

Theres literally nothing left to insure unless you want plastic surgery insurance or something

What if a doctor wants to have an MRI done but Medicare tells them it isn't covered? This is why canada allows supplemental insurance and we have MA. Bernies bill outlaws any private coverage for anything that involves doctors and hospitals.

 

[Cubs79]

It wouldn't be, that's why his bill bans it. Of course that means we are hoping that the government doesnt deny any kind of treatment on any individual basis.

Again, this is completely false, nothing in his bill bans it. It bans duplicate coverage. Yes, his plan covers a lot so there might not be a need for supplemental insurance so if this plan were to pass unedited, then there might not be a need for it. But, if there are changes to this in congress, then supplemental insurance might be needed (we would have to wait and see the final bill), and this plan says absolutely nothing about banning it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Again, this is completely false, nothing in his bill bans it. It bans duplicate coverage. Yes, his plan covers a lot so there might not be a need for supplemental insurance so if this plan were to pass unedited, then there might not be a need for it. But, if there are changes to this in congress, then supplemental insurance might be needed (we would have to wait and see the final bill), and this plan says absolutely nothing about banning it.

I literally linked to his bill. It bans private coverage for anything that MFA covers and it lays out everything that MFA covers. Are you just acting ignorant about this or what? Why ban insurance that duplicates what MFA covers when MFA is compulsory? He wants to dictate the kind of care people receive and keep you from getting anything more.

 

[Cubs79]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the need for supplemental private insurance when there are no deductibles, co-pays, premiums, out of pocket expense and vision and dental coverage included.

Theres literally nothing left to insure unless you want plastic surgery insurance or something

You are correct if his bill were to pass unedited. But I think Crazy's BS needs to be called out, because we all know that there is a very good chance there would be some changes to his bill, which could open up the need for supplemental insurance for some things. The bill says nothing about banning supplemental insurance, only duplicate coverage, so if there were some changes, then supplemental insurance would still be a possibility. I am just pointing out that Crazy is completely making stuff up.

 

[Cubs79]

I literally linked to his bill. It bans private coverage for anything that MFA covers and it lays out everything that MFA covers. Are you just acting ignorant about this or what? Why ban insurance that duplicates what MFA covers when MFA is compulsory? He wants to dictate the kind of care people receive and keep you from getting anything more.

I know you linked to his bill, but you didn't link to the part that bans supplemental insurance because it doesn't say that in his bill. You are making it up.

 

[Crazyhole]

I know you linked to his bill, but you didn't link to the part that bans supplemental insurance because it doesn't say that in his bill. You are making it up.

Tell me what I can get private insurance for based on what his bill covers.

 

[Cubs79]

Tell me what I can get private insurance for based on what his bill covers.

It would depend on if there were any changes to the bill and who knows what technology in the future would come about that may or may not fit in the guidelines, etc etc. But I don't know why you are insisting it explicitly bans it when it doesn't remotely say that. But also, his bill covering everything is a good thing. Most people would rather their primary insurer cover all their needs so they don't need additional coverage.

 

[fried-chicken]

It wouldn't be, that's why his bill bans it. Of course that means we are hoping that the government doesnt deny any kind of treatment on any individual basis.

I've dealt with both private insurance and Medicare. The only time any doctors decision was questioned and held up was on private insurance. It's how they make their money. Their business model is and all business models are "take in more than you give out."

They control their costs of goods sold by denying and delaying treatment and payouts.

We had a $1600 per treatment drug (after insurance) denied and the drug company gave it to us for $200 per treatment outside of insurance. This was a company we paid to cover our costs and it was 1/8 of the price to not use them when it was covered and like 1% of the cost when they started denying it.

Companies like GoodRx are thriving right now by just taking prescriptions out of insurance all together. It's cheaper in many cases to just not use insurance and find your medications on websites like that.

We also had to have our doctor write 3 letters detailing why my wife needed regular imaging every 3 months and not every 6 months.

While she was on Medicare she faced none of these hurdles.

Private insurance is the one that's business model is based around denying coverage.

 

[Crazyhole]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...l_makes_health_insurance_illegal_135047.html#!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...roposal-would-outlaw-private-healthcare-plans

https://slate.com/business/2019/07/banning-private-insurance-democrats-health-care.html

 

[Crazyhole]

I've dealt with both private insurance and Medicare. The only time any doctors decision was questioned and held up was on private insurance. It's how they make their money. Their business model is and all business models are "take in more than you give out."

They control their costs of goods sold by denying and delaying treatment and payouts.

We had a $1600 per treatment drug (after insurance) denied and the drug company gave it to us for $200 per treatment outside of insurance. This was a company we paid to cover our costs and it was 1/8 of the price to not use them when it was covered and like 1% of the cost when they started denying it.

Companies like GoodRx are thriving right now by just taking prescriptions out of insurance all together. It's cheaper in many cases to just not use insurance and find your medications on websites like that.

We also had to have our doctor write 3 letters detailing why my wife needed regular imaging every 3 months and not every 6 months.

While she was on Medicare she faced none of these hurdles.

Private insurance is the one that's business model is based around denying coverage.

Isnt it amazing that goodrx can get you drugs cheaper than medicare? Medicare is the single largest customer plan for pharmaceuticals and yet they can't seem to negotiate prices down.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

This is literally the government deciding if you live or die. Hilter would have loved this plan too.

 

[UCFWayne]

when prices skyrocket after bernies take over of health insurance is complete, the only way to get the prices under control will be to take over the healthcare system itself. the price for drugs keep going up? time to take that over too...

 

[UCFKnight85]

MFA is so feasible and such a good idea that even avowed socialists like brainded AOC and Paul Krugman are out there telling people "oh don't worry guys, Bernie can't actually get this crap passed. Don't be scared!"

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

when prices skyrocket after bernies take over of health insurance is complete, the only way to get the prices under control will be to take over the healthcare system itself. the price for drugs keep going up? time to take that over too...

The go to plan is always raising taxes. There isn't a problem they can't solve with taking more money...lol. They never work on automation or efficiency... reduction of staff. Always tax more.

 

[Cubs79]

Isnt it amazing that goodrx can get you drugs cheaper than medicare? Medicare is the single largest customer plan for pharmaceuticals and yet they can't seem to negotiate prices down.

It's because the law prohibits them from negotiating.

Medicare pays far more for drugs than government programs that negotiate. Under current law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. In contrast, other government programs, like Medicaid and VA, are allowed to negotiate. As a result, Medicare Part D pays on average 73% more than Medicaid and 80% more than VA for brand name drugs. The federal government could save between $15.2 and $16 billion a year if Medicare Part D paid the same prices as Medicaid or VA.

 

[Crazyhole]

It's because the law prohibits them from negotiating.

Medicare pays far more for drugs than government programs that negotiate. Under current law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. In contrast, other government programs, like Medicaid and VA, are allowed to negotiate. As a result, Medicare Part D pays on average 73% more than Medicaid and 80% more than VA for brand name drugs. The federal government could save between $15.2 and $16 billion a year if Medicare Part D paid the same prices as Medicaid or VA.

Well golly, what on earth would be the motivation to not allow medicare to negotiate prices? Could it be the pharmaceutical lobby? Thank god that wont exist under MFA.

 

[Cubs79]

Well golly, what on earth would be the motivation to not allow medicare to negotiate prices? Could it be the pharmaceutical lobby? Thank god that wont exist under MFA.

Sanders is calling for this to be changed, you realize that right?

 

[btbones]

Are you just acting ignorant

Are you just acting ignorant

Oh its not just an act

 

[Cubs79]

This is literally the government deciding if you live or die. Hilter would have loved this plan too.

As opposed to private companies who are only interest in their profits margins deciding it.

 

[Crazyhole]

As opposed to private companies who are only interest in their profits margins deciding it.

Remember when obamacare was supposed to fix that but just made things worse?

I remember being called insane for suggesting that the goal of obamacare was to get to single payer.

 

[Cubs79]

Remember when obamacare was supposed to fix that but just made things worse?

I remember being called insane for suggesting that the goal of obamacare was to get to single payer.

How has it made things worse?

And no, I don't remember when Obamacare was supposed to fix that. Obamacare is just mandated private insurance, but other than pre-existing conditions, it didn't really change policies that much.

But I do think it's funny when people bring up this argument. They are literally arguing they are ok with a for profit private company deciding if they live or die, but the government doing it is too much for them.

 

[Crazyhole]

How has it made things worse?

And no, I don't remember when Obamacare was supposed to fix that. Obamacare is just mandated private insurance, but other than pre-existing conditions, it didn't really change policies that much.

Obamacare mandated that insurance companies use no less than 80% of premiums for patient care. Sounds great in theory but it meant all of the smaller insurers were forced out of the market and that lack of competition meant that those that were left could charge more. Hospitals loved it, insurance companies loved it, and the customer got screwed.

 

[Cubs79]

Obamacare mandated that insurance companies use no less than 80% of premiums for patient care. Sounds great in theory but it meant all of the smaller insurers were forced out of the market and that lack of competition meant that those that were left could charge more. Hospitals loved it, insurance companies loved it, and the customer got screwed.

Ok, not sure what this has to do with what we are talking about.

 

[sk8knight]

How has it made things worse?

And no, I don't remember when Obamacare was supposed to fix that. Obamacare is just mandated private insurance, but other than pre-existing conditions, it didn't really change policies that much.

But I do think it's funny when people bring up this argument. They are literally arguing they are ok with a for profit private company deciding if they live or die, but the government doing it is too much for them.

Obamacare changed a good bit more than pre-existing conditions. It added a good bit of mandated coverage, including things like birth control, that weren't on policies before and also penalized policies that were deemed "cadillac" policies. Which resulted in many employers downgrading their policy choices to save costs when they didn't cut it out entirely. This degradation of policies for so many of the public seems to be largely ignored by the media, who just want to look at the uninsured number.

Which is the point that this entire discussion is missing. The budgetary numbers are just attempts to sell this to people who care about that. What this is really about is "equality of care." People purchasing supplemental insurance when others don't have the means to do so is unfair, thus it will be banned. They will construct some financial argument for it that is easily disproven, but since fairness is the cornerstone of their belief system they will eventually bottom everything out. Of course, much like every system in history built on fairness, the people running the system will not have to play by the same rules. It's inevitable.