Health care CEO: Medicare for all 'would just collapse the system'

SOCIALISM! BERNIE! SOCIALISM! BERNIE!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAAAAAA AAAAA

Health care CEO: Medicare for all 'would just collapse the system'

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/m...123203720.html

Adriana Belmonte 13 hours ago

Health care is becoming a main point of contention as the U.S. gears up for the 2020 presidential election. Several Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), have called for Medicare for all, while Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell are in favor of cutting health care spending.

Medicare, along with Medicaid and Social Security, are the largest expenses in the U.S. And according to eHealth CEO Scott Flanders, this is “all the more reason” why an idea like Medicare for all is “nearly irrational” to discuss.

“You’re already saying that it’s a challenge to fund what we’ve already committed to our seniors,” Flanders said on Yahoo Finance’s On the Move. “So, to layer on another 180 million people outside of the employer market into Medicare would just collapse the system.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., responds to a question during a town hall meeting in Jackson, Miss. (Photo: AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)

Sanders bill ‘would actually outlaw all private insurance’

The Congressional Budget Office stated in a May 2019 report that a single-payer health care system transition “could be complicated, challenging, and potentially disruptive.”

As it stands, approximately 156 million Americans are insured through their employer, while another 21 million are insured through the private market. At the same time, more and more Americans are becoming uninsured in the Trump era.

In Sanders’ proposal, Americans would gain universal health care coverage, while employers would be prohibited from providing separate plans. However, it would also require at least $3 trillion a year in new government revenue, as Yahoo Finance previously reported, leading to higher corporate and individual taxes.

“The bill that’s been promulgated by Bernie Sanders would actually outlaw all private insurance,” Flanders said. “So, 180 million employer-insured individuals and families would lose the insurance they have now.

He added: “We think it’s highly unlikely that that’s a realistic prospect, but there will still always be a private insurance market for the treatments that aren’t covered by a government plan.”

Rising health care costs have become a major issue in the country. In fact, a recent Gallup poll indicated that 55% of the country worries “a great deal” about the affordability and accessibility of health care.

‘It’s just so Byzantine’

Pharma executives wait to testify before the Senate Finance Committee hearing on drug prices, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Photo: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Part of America’s issue with health care involves prescription drug prices — in 2015, those accounted for 17% of all health care costs. Flanders, though, doesn’t want to place the blame there.

“It’s easy to attack the pharmaceutical industry,” he said. “But, it’s important to remember they only represent 10% of the total cost of health care, and the medications they create solve and cure a lot of diseases. So, I’m personally resistant, even though they’re an attractive whipping boy, to go after them.”

Pharmacy benefit management systems “have increased the cost savings by negotiating volume discounts,” Flanders said. “But, they also bring an additional layer of expense into the system. That’s the challenge with the ecosystem of health care today — it’s just so Byzantine and complicated [that] it’s hard to know where to go attack the costs.”

Still, despite his objections to Medicare for all, Flanders does recognize the significance of Medicare’s current standing, especially as it relates to senior citizens.

“Medicare is the one aspect of the health care system that has higher customer satisfaction,” Flanders said. “The hospitals, the doctors have all learned to live with Medicare. And so, it’s part of the system that works — that’s why it’s become a popular Democratic platform to say ‘Medicare for all,’ because Medicare is an aspect of the system that’s generally delivering on strong patient outcomes at a reasonable cost.”

But, Flanders added, “these are commitments that we’ve made to seniors. Seniors have paid into Medicare their entire lives. It’s just not right to think about curtailing those benefits.”
Adriana is an associate editor for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @adrianambells.
READ MORE:

• Ex-CBO director: Obamacare 'is working' and we've 'wasted almost a decade' trying to dismantle it
• As Trump waits on Obamacare, Americans list health care as top worry
• CEO: One key thing needs to happen before U.S. considers universal health care

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, SmartNews, LinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit.

Please call it "Medicaid," because that's what it is.

Medicare is based on employer/employee contributions over the life of the recipient and is not designed or intended to cover all medical expenses.

Medicare is a federal program that provides health coverage if you are 65+ or under 65 and have a disability, no matter your income.
Medicaid is a state and federal program that provides health coverage if you have a very low income.

If you are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (dually eligible), you can have both. They will work together to provide you with health coverage and lower your costs.

https://www.medicareinteractive.org/...e-and-medicaid

With respect to the stats ... one should look critically at the "politics" when analyzing the "basis" for the programs and who benefits politically .... here is small example:

In 2014, California’s personal health care spending was highest in the nation ($295.0 billion), representing 11.5 percent of total U.S. personal health care spending. Comparing historical state rankings through 2014, California consistently had the highest level of total personal health care spending, together with the highest total population in the nation.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statist...act-sheet.html

Think: Pelosi and Democrats when seeing "California" and the desire to move away from the Electoral College and toward "population" voting, which is now including illegal aliens in California.

The other stat in the same referenced article:

NHE grew 3.9% to $3.5 trillion in 2017, or $10,739 per person, and accounted for 17.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Medicare spending grew 4.2% to $705.9 billion in 2017, or 20 percent of total NHE.

Medicaid spending grew 2.9% to $581.9 billion in 2017, or 17 percent of total NHE.

Private health insurance spending grew 4.2% to $1,183.9 billion in 2017, or 34 percent of total NHE.

Out of pocket spending grew 2.6% to $365.5 billion in 2017, or 10 percent of total NHE.

Hospital expenditures grew 4.6% to $1,142.6 billion in 2017, slower than the 5.6% growth in 2016.

Physician and clinical services expenditures grew 4.2% to $694.3 billion in 2017, a slower growth than the 5.6% in 2016.

Prescription drug spending increased 0.4% to $333.4 billion in 2017, slower than the 2.3% growth in 2016.

The largest shares of total health spending were sponsored by the federal government (28.1 percent) and the households (28.0 percent).

The private business share of health spending accounted for 19.9 percent of total health care spending,

state and local governments accounted for 17.1 percent, and

other private revenues accounted for 6.8 percent.

What the loons running in the Democratic Party (most of them!) want is to promise National Healthcare for ALL (REMEMBER ... including THE ILLEGAL ALIENS ...those in the country and those who will be coming) ...

for the most part those are the same people who "promised" the ACA would work and you could keep your doctor and your health insurance if you wanted it .... (Almost as big a lie as the "Russian Collusion Bullshit")

If one will "notice" .... health care expenditures GREW after the "Affordable Care Act" .... aka "Obamacare" .... at a rate greater than the inflation rate AND GDP (which includes FEDERAL MONEY INJECTED INTO THE ECONOMY IN THE FORM OF LOANS AND GRANTS) of around 2%.

The increased premiums and restrictive employment practices to avoid application of the ACA to employers drove working folks away from private insurance to Federally supported/funded programs for themselves and/or their children. I've posted many times: The ACA was about bailing out the failing health care plans for retirees in California ... and the stats demonstrate the rationale for it ... politics and the bankrupt California governments ... it was "Pelosi's" gift to California and its voters ... that's why she didn't know what was in it and didn't care when it passed. The agency regs would take care of the details.... California!

BTW: Does Bernie get medicare or does he get the "Federal Health Insurance" coverage? I would probably support a "one payor" system, if all the government elected officials and employees: Federal, State, and Local WERE REQUIRED TO BE ON IT AS WELL WITHOUT ANY TAXPAYER PAID SUPPLEMENTS OR SALARY INCREASES TO COVER THE SHORTFALL and there was a Federal crime included for seeking health care outside of the 50 states and territories of the U.S. with a minimum of 10 years for each element of care obtained with a mandatory stacked sentence for each count and a mandatory added 10 years for each subsequent offense .... FOR ANY U.S. CITIZEN, LEGAL RESIDENT, AND/OR ILLEGAL RESIDENT ... with a vicarious liability for parents who seek health care for their children (or dependents) outside of the geographic area.

If I am going to be required to have substandard health care so are they!

OK,
Medicare for all. All what? Just US citizens? Or more?
Yes the nationalized health care system has been discussed numerous times before.
Who is going to pay for it?
Where's that answer?
The USG is already digging further into debt at a trillion a year.

How bad will medical care fall down to?
Much longer lines, inadequately trained medicos, lack of service issues, etc. This has all occurred elsewhere.

As a primary side issue, is not state of the art medical care a function of capitalism? Investing in R&D for pharmaceuticals, or various imaging devices is a pure capitalistic function. So, someones going to tell a Swiss pharmaceutical co that they will only be paid $x/pill? They simply won't ship to the US.

Lets just call this BS what it is, vote for me and I'll give you X.
Simply vote buying socialism that will further bankrupt the US

The above posters - Thank you all

Accurate posts on "Free Medical Care for All" - including all illegal immigrants the DPST's are helping wash across the Southern border.
It is a financial nightmare.

There are some abuses - pharmacy prices have been jacked by some companies for generic meds.

The pharma companies bear enormous expenses to R&D meds - dictated by FDA regulations. That is part of the expense puzzle. And a defense - Thalidomide was never allowed in the US - did not meet regulatory standards - and thus no thalidomide babies were born in the US.

Almost no one is denied basic health care right now so why destroy the system just to virtue signal to everyone how caring you are as a candidate?

and theres of course the illegals using our health system to deal with their health issues driving the cost up further

Almost no one is denied basic health care right now so why destroy the system just to virtue signal to everyone how caring you are as a candidate? Originally Posted by friendly fred

It is not about virtue or caring for underserved to the DPST's. It is about total control of the populace - and medical care is a part of that control.
Ever heard one breath from the DPST's about socialized Law - free Legal care for All - their lawyers won't permit that.

Isn't that the liberal goal