- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why does “Medicare for all” require the illegality of offering plans that cover same stuff
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:16 pm
I never quite got this
If the govt starts taxing people to pay for M4A, it’s not like a substantial amount of Americans would continue to buy private insurance. Why would someone not take advantage of something their taxes are going towards?
The amount of people would would buy their own extensive private insurance would be negligible. And providers would simply not be able to survive by only accepting this private insurance when 95%+ Americans are on govt plan
Why do so many health care policy makers fear such an implausible scenario where private insurance somehow hurts a m4a system?
Why does Canada ban plans that cover what the govt plan covers?
If the govt starts taxing people to pay for M4A, it’s not like a substantial amount of Americans would continue to buy private insurance. Why would someone not take advantage of something their taxes are going towards?
The amount of people would would buy their own extensive private insurance would be negligible. And providers would simply not be able to survive by only accepting this private insurance when 95%+ Americans are on govt plan
Why do so many health care policy makers fear such an implausible scenario where private insurance somehow hurts a m4a system?
Why does Canada ban plans that cover what the govt plan covers?
5
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Because FedGov wants to collect all the money, AND CONTROL (translate: RATION) who gets care and who doesn't.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:19 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
IDK
In France and England there is a private system right alongside the public one.
But as you stated, Canada had for a long time at least outlawed the private system.
I understand that the only 2 countries to abolish the private option were Canada and North Korea.
In France and England there is a private system right alongside the public one.
But as you stated, Canada had for a long time at least outlawed the private system.
I understand that the only 2 countries to abolish the private option were Canada and North Korea.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:21 pm to TrueTiger
I’m pretty sure in Europe it is illegal for health insurance companies to offer coverage for services that the govt plan already covers
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
That's what I understand.
I work with a Brit and he confirmed.
I work with a Brit and he confirmed.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:24 pm to TrueTiger
But my question is why?
If 90%+ of population is on govt plan, private plans aren’t a threat
If 90%+ of population is on govt plan, private plans aren’t a threat
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:24 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
You can't control everyone if you allow them to opt out of the system.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:26 pm to roadGator
quote:
You can't control everyone if you allow them to opt out of the system.
basically this
upper-middle and upper class people would get monumentally better (and even more monumentally faster) care. can't have that in a government-dominated system
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:29 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
A plan of such a gigantic scope will only work if the risk pool is diverse enough. Basically you have to have enough healthy, low cost people paying in to offset the cost of those who require significant medical expenses. Allowing a private option would possibly lead to healthier people seeking alternatives based on price or coverage, thus throwing a financial wrench in the whole system
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
A public system of that size has probably never been attempted before (maybe the China infrastructure strategy?). My guess is, they are expecting it to be run like a total clown show, and that could potentially drive people to a supplemental plan.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:30 pm to jmitc22
quote:
A plan of such a gigantic scope will only work if the risk pool is diverse enough. Basically you have to have enough healthy, low cost people paying in to offset the cost of those who require significant medical expenses. Allowing a private option would possibly lead to healthier people seeking alternatives based on price or coverage, thus throwing a financial wrench in the whole system
this makes NO sense
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:32 pm to jmitc22
quote:
A plan of such a gigantic scope will only work if the risk pool is diverse enough. Basically you have to have enough healthy, low cost people paying in to offset the cost of those who require significant medical expenses. Allowing a private option would possibly lead to healthier people seeking alternatives based on price or coverage, thus throwing a financial wrench in the whole system
Those healthy, low cost people will still be paying the taxes to fund the single payer system though
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's the rule of large numbers and is related to risk.
It does make sense when underwritting a large group.
Now i will say that is impossible to accurately underwrite medicare for all.
It does make sense when underwritting a large group.
Now i will say that is impossible to accurately underwrite medicare for all.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:53 pm to roadGator
the underwritten population is still the same
the funding is still the same
private insurance would remove burdens from the system by taking patients off the rolls (while the funding remains the same)
the funding is still the same
private insurance would remove burdens from the system by taking patients off the rolls (while the funding remains the same)
Posted on 6/11/19 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
Not necessarily. If you take out a bunch of people that can afford good private insurance you are taking out people who generally care about their health and see their doctors reguarly.
The lower part of our society has more issues including not being compliant and poor health behaviors.
You'd tip the scale.
The lower part of our society has more issues including not being compliant and poor health behaviors.
You'd tip the scale.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 2:24 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If the govt starts taxing people to pay for M4A, it’s not like a substantial amount of Americans would continue to buy private insurance. Why would someone not take advantage of something their taxes are going towards?
They do not want “Medicare for all” they want government run healthcare for all. They say “Medicare” because that word polls better than government.
It would require physician pay and reimbursement to be cut by 40%. And everyone’s taxes to go up. Appointments would then be rationed by time since quality and price would be removed. If private insurance were to exist, providers would only accept private insurance.
Government run healthcare can’t survive in general but the disaster would be compounded if there were alternatives.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 2:36 pm to roadGator
quote:
Not necessarily. If you take out a bunch of people that can afford good private insurance you are taking out people who generally care about their health and see their doctors reguarly.
but even then, they will still have burdens and now those burdens are removed from the public system
quote:
The lower part of our society has more issues including not being compliant and poor health behaviors.
You'd tip the scale.
the scale is based off our total population regardless and the funding is based of taxing that population
your argument would only make sense if private insurance somehow removed resources from the public system (note: it wouldn't)
Posted on 6/11/19 at 2:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
Poor people are more unhealthy. Take out the upper middle class and the rich and you'd not be able to fund claims.
That's why they don't want you to be able to buy the same insuarnce privately.
The actual cost of covering that population would be painful to see.
That's why they don't want you to be able to buy the same insuarnce privately.
The actual cost of covering that population would be painful to see.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
I assumed that there would be a payment opt-out if you had private insurance. I guess you are assuming somewhat the opposite: that Medicare for all would be funded and paid through the existing structure where you don’t pay a premium, it just all comes from the government coffers
Posted on 6/11/19 at 2:49 pm to roadGator
insurance* - I'm here all day if you need some more grammar hints. I know Florida fans are more concerned with kissing their cousins over primary education
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News