How Much Could Medicare for All Save You?

[eridani]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/21/how-much-could-medicare-for-all-save-you.aspx#.UevtGUalfbA.email

The Motley Fool

But could it be that the ACA isn't really needed at all? Could an alternative idea -- "Medicare for all" -- actually do a better job of controlling medical costs, and making health care affordable for Americans?

Harvard Medical School visiting professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler recently noted on the pages of The New York Times that a Medicare-for-all health care system -- known commonly as "single-payer" --is an incredibly efficient operation, in terms of costs.

On average, only 2% of the revenues that flow through Medicare are needed to cover overhead costs. In contrast, patients who subscribe to private health insurance spend 14% of their money -- seven times as much -- just paying for the overhead costs doctors incur from juggling the multitude of insurance procedures required for different patients subscribing to insurance plans.

In contrast, the U.S. government itself agrees that the ACA -- the system we've settled upon instead of offering Medicare for all -- costs more than a move to a cheaper, more efficient, and better single-payer system. The U.S. Government Accountability Office calculates that a switch to single-payer would shave $400 billion a year off the national health-care bill.

Little wonder, then, that a 2008 survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that 59% of physicians polled support Medicare for all.

If an individual consumers think they're better off with a private health insurance plan from WellPoint -- or from UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, or Cigna -- then fine. They could still sign up for one of those, either as a supplement to Medicare-for-all or, if they prefer, as an exclusive plan, and choose not to participate in Medicare at all. For that matter, there should be no need to require anyone to buy any insurance whatsoever.

About The Motley Fool
http://www.fool.com/press/about.htm?source=ifltnvsnv0000001

The Motley Fool is a multimedia financial-services company dedicated to building the world's greatest investment community. Reaching millions of people each month through its website, books, newspaper column, television appearances, and subscription newsletter services, The Motley Fool champions shareholder values and advocates tirelessly for the individual investor. The company's name was taken from Shakespeare, whose wise fools both instructed and amused, and could speak the truth to the king -- without getting their heads lopped off.

Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: This article is truly remarkable because of its source. The Motley Fool "champions shareholder values and advocates tirelessly for the individual investor." Although they didn't get everything right (they would include private insurance options and would have no requirement to even be insured), nevertheless this is a particularly strong statement for Medicare for All from a Wall Street source that is just now joining the parade.

Perhaps even more remarkable are the comments posted in response to this article. Considering that these comments are from the investment community, there is strong support for Medicare for All. Inevitably, as with most comment sections, there is a representation of ill-informed, ideologically-driven and sometimes belligerent comments, but those can be ignored.

We should take home from this the lesson that many in the investment community understand that Medicare for All really does make sense from the business perspective. We should tailor our message accordingly.

[Sherman A1]

1. K&R

It absolutely makes sense from the business perspective, unless of course you happen to be a private health insurance company, but one suspects that even they could easily adjust to a new landscape with supplemental policies and alike.

[ejpoeta]

2. they seems to do just fine in the medicare supplement field. I see their damned commercials all the

time.... guess i watch shows old people watch. And when I suggest the medicare for all as a better choice people will complain that medicare isn't that great. Has lots of problems. Well, it might have problems, but we could fix it. Better than starting over. They have a good blueprint. They need to not pay for quantity though.... Pay instead for quality. If people paid in what most of us pay out to our insurance now then we could pay decent amounts to the doctors. I wish people would actually pay attention. Quit watching mass media's propaganda machine and do some friggin research. Then demand it.

[Hoyt]

6. Right now, private insurers administer all Medicare claims, and offer Medicare Advantage plans

as an alternative to traditional Medicare. Roughly 30% of those covered by Medicare are through these plans which are offered by insurers such as Blue Cross, Humana, Aetnaz etc. The prescription drug coverage is through private insurers too.

The feds write the rules, provide the dough, check on performance, etc. But private insurers administer the program, and actually provide services nowadays.

I doubt that would change under Medicare for all.

I'm for It, but we'd still be dealing with insurance companies.

[eridani]

9. If insurance companies are allowed to do NOTHING bur process claims, that would be fine

They should have no role whatsoever in determining eligibility or in refusing to pay claims.

[Hoyt]

19. They do refuse to pay claims, like cosmetic surgery, over utilization, upcoding, false claims, fraud

and the like. They make medical necessity decisions, etc. Unfortunately, someone has to or unscrupulous health care providers would be giving patients 24 hours worth of therapeutic massage 365 days a year, costly treatments for a common Cold, etc.

This is all under federal guidelines, but there is a lot of room for interpretation of how those guidelines apply. Contractors who handle this can be sanctioned - even lose their contacts - if they don't perform adequately.

[eridani]

20. The unscrupulous people are insurance companies

They deny claims for their own bottom lines. For regular Medicare, they process claims, period.

[Hoyt]

21. Insurance companies process Medicare claims, but that also entails denying "improper" claims.

Insurers are definitely suspect, but providers are also motivated by profit, and some do things that society cannot afford.

[eridani]

22. I'd rather have those things determined by people who don't get bonuses

--for denying claims.

[Hoyt]

23. That's for sure.

[KrazyinKS]

3. Do the rich have problems sitting in the same waiting room as the poor?

I have days where I think that is the real problem. I have been to a lot of doctors through the years, being a cancer survivor. There are rich people clinics and poor people clinics. The rich people clinics are popping up more often now. I think rich people feel very uncomfortable sitting in poor people clinics. They do not want to sit in the same room with someone who is struggling. That's why they don't want single payer, or at least part of the reason.

[theaocp]

7. The rich would demand the headsman

if they were condemned to death, rather than face the indignity of hanging like a commoner.

[riverbendviewgal]

8. they do on toronto's Sunnybrook cancer centre

Which is a beautiful and incredible centre which my husband and son were treated in. I love my one payer health care in Ontario. Last year I paid $450 as my share of health care through my income taxes and my prescription drug costs were $100 for the year because I am over 65. There were no medical bills for our doctor or hospital treatments. I had laser eye surgery the same day I saw my optometrist. He sent me out of town to a eye surgeon. I had a detached retina. Since it was a 2 hour drive my provincial health care paid $80 toward gas travel costs. If I had to stay overnight I would get a motel cost grant for$100. I live in Northeast Ontario. My town has a clinic with about 5 doctors available. They keep improving the service to get better and faster service. We have a nurse and 2 nurse practitioners who determine if a doctor is needed to be seen. They can prescribe non narcotic drugs and do renewals. Our medical history is online throughout the province.
Canadians voted Saskatchewan's premier Tommy Douglas as most important Canadian. He started one payer health care in the sixties.

[bemildred]

11. You have to be poor so they can be rich.

If everybody is the same, they are not special.
For people to whom such things matter, it tends to matter a lot.
They get very needy.
Take a look at how they live.
It's amazing in a vacuous sort of way.

[geckosfeet]

4. Of course. There was talk of lowering the eligibility age to 55 when the ACA was being put together.

Why re-invent a new a new system when we already have one?

I think it is mostly a funding issue, but my take is it cocts ten times as much to get a new program off the ground than it does to improve an existing one.

Just need to get funding (read that as raise revenue, taxes) and tweak a few eligibility rules.

[livingwagenow]

5. Recced. nt

[Recursion]

10. But private plans subsidize Medicare and Medicaid

If the Medicare price is all that providers could accept, that price would have to go up.

[bemildred]

12. Medicare was a way to keep the most expensive patients off the InsCos books.

Cherry picking the young and healthy and leaving the old to be paid for from the public trough.

Medicare subsidizes private insurance, not the other way around.

And they will do what they are told or lose their licenses, like now.

[Recursion]

13. Providers, not insurers

Private plans subsidize Medicare by paying providers more. Hospitals can't afford to treat everyone at the Medicare rate.

[bemildred]

14. Providers don't have to be paid more. All we have to do is open the door.

And we will have plenty of competent doctors.

[Recursion]

15. You mean the AMA's caps on med schools?

I definitely agree there. But again that means doctors would make less.

[bemildred]

16. No, I mean immigration, but what you mention too.

The shortage is artificial, it keeps prices up. It's classic. It is not like there are no physicians who would like to come and work here. It's a great racket here. You can get filthy rich doing the most ordinary things.

And we need one hell of a lot more primary care physicians too, and we are not making them here.

[Recursion]

17. That too. count me in

Plus expanding the primary and preventive care that can be done by non-physicians. Fortunately HHS had some leeway under that one starting next year.

[bemildred]

18. Cool. I'm not saying we will do that. But we certainly could, no problem.

In fact things would get a lot better fast.

[johnnyreb]

24. KICK

Great post, thanks.

[woo me with science]

25. K&R

[Cleita]

26. The PTB hate that idea. Then the insurance industry would

be cut off from the government welfare they so desire. It has been proved that it is the most efficient and cost effective system to delivering quality medical care to everyone.