Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[C-south]

In super bizarro liberal poontown it is

Gonna have to go to the judges on whether that was a slur or not.

 

[Carl Pickens]

View attachment 190607

Little black book....sneaky criminal ninja-like black choking gloves....assault rifle mouse pad ...... you probably triggered several of the posters

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[AM64]

Gonna have to go to the judges on whether that was a slur or not.

I predict some serious judge shopping ... because precedence,

 

[1972 Grad]

It's shame he is a gun grabber.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It's shame he is a gun grabber.

LOL, when who we thought was an ultra-lib is slamming an ultra-er lib.

 

[lawgator1]

He's right.

The only thing I've heard mentioned so far that is not totally out of the question is "Medicare for all." Mind you, I don't think it will pass all at once. But it makes sense to gradually expand the groups that participate and pay for it along the way with Medicare taxes to self-sustain.

The cost to fund it for all would be approximately $3 trillion/year. Currently, we spend $1.5 trillion on premiums, and the savings from administrative costs alone would be over $1 trillion. So we can come close just in nixing premiums and cost savings.

And that means no uninsured problem and no deductibles or copays. So there would be substantial savings there, as well.

I don't expect this to happen any time soon. The companies making a TON of money off the current system will fight it and portray it with so much negativity that it just can't pass. But slowly expanding it would. So that's the way to go.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

He's right.

The only thing I've heard mentioned so far that is not totally out of the question is "Medicare for all." Mind you, I don't think it will pass all at once. But it makes sense to gradually expand the groups that participate and pay for it along the way with Medicare taxes to self-sustain.

The cost to fund it for all would be approximately $3 trillion/year. Currently, we spend $1.5 trillion on premiums, and the savings from administrative costs alone would be over $1 trillion. So we can come close just in nixing premiums and cost savings.

And that means no uninsured problem and no deductibles or copays. So there would be substantial savings there, as well.

I don't expect this to happen any time soon. The companies making a TON of money off the current system will fight it and portray it with so much negativity that it just can't pass. But slowly expanding it would. So that's the way to go.

Wait a minute You are going to make a government program BIGGER, and that will SAVE on administrative costs?

 

[lawgator1]

Wait a minute You are going to make a government program BIGGER, and that will SAVE on administrative costs?

Do some research. Administrative costs in the Medicare program are about 3 percent. For private health insurers it is several times that. Additionally, the government can get even better rates on pharmacy costs.

 

[AM64]

Do some research. Administrative costs in the Medicare program are about 3 percent. For private health insurers it is several times that. Additionally, the government can get even better rates on pharmacy costs.

The government has never managed to manage the economy of scale thing. Bigger program = more people = more layers = more inefficiency and less accountability because that's just the way bureaucracies roll. Why did Medicare never negotiate drug costs like normal insurors did?

 

[TheDeeble]

The government has never managed to manage the economy of scale thing. Bigger program = more people = more layers = more inefficiency and less accountability because that's just the way bureaucracies roll. Why did Medicare never negotiate drug costs like normal insurors did?

They can't even manage the website to register. What private company would spend what the Obama admin did for healthcare.gov?

But the govt would do it better. Ok.

 

[LouderVol]

Do some research. Administrative costs in the Medicare program are about 3 percent. For private health insurers it is several times that. Additionally, the government can get even better rates on pharmacy costs.

just like insurance costs went down with ACA?

it doesn't work.

 

[CABVOL]

Do some research. Administrative costs in the Medicare program are about 3 percent. For private health insurers it is several times that. Additionally, the government can get even better rates on pharmacy costs.

The government says “This is what we will pay you, period. If the patient is chronic and will be an inpatient for days; doesn’t matter. Deal with it.” Not just pharmaceuticals but everything.

 

[82_VOL_83]

He's right.

The only thing I've heard mentioned so far that is not totally out of the question is "Medicare for all." Mind you, I don't think it will pass all at once. But it makes sense to gradually expand the groups that participate and pay for it along the way with Medicare taxes to self-sustain.

The cost to fund it for all would be approximately $3 trillion/year. Currently, we spend $1.5 trillion on premiums, and the savings from administrative costs alone would be over $1 trillion. So we can come close just in nixing premiums and cost savings.

And that means no uninsured problem and no deductibles or copays. So there would be substantial savings there, as well.

I don't expect this to happen any time soon. The companies making a TON of money off the current system will fight it and portray it with so much negativity that it just can't pass. But slowly expanding it would. So that's the way to go.

Translation: we will raise your Medicare Insurance that you aren't supposed to "dip" into until 65 to a level that will be basically 3x what you are paying in health insurance and medicare combined. THEN, we are going to give this same care to everyone so that 1) your access to healthcare will be decreased because there will be way more people going to the doctor and the doctors are already quitting, or 2) your access to healthcare will be decreased because the doctors are already quitting.

This screams death panels to me. Once you are too old and are using more of your "reasonable and rationale" amount of the healthcare pie, we will just limit what you have access too.


OMG, I responded to the ****ing troll. He got me again!

 

[82_VOL_83]

Do some research. Administrative costs in the Medicare program are about 3 percent. For private health insurers it is several times that. Additionally, the government can get even better rates on pharmacy costs.

You cannot use empirical data from a system that isn't in stasis. As soon as you change access, the data goes in the s**tter.

 

[Obsessed]

just like insurance costs went down with ACA?

it doesn't work.

I heard on the radio this morning that almost 50% of our current doctors in the country are thinking of quitting. The ACA is running them out of business. Go full blown under gov control and we won’t have any doctors left

 

[lawgator1]

I heard on the radio this morning that almost 50% of our current doctors in the country are thinking of quitting. The ACA is running them out of business. Go full blown under gov control and we won’t have any doctors left

Well that's just a lie. It isn't the ACA that is causing these problems. A lot of it is the expense and labor that goes into billing and getting paid by a half a dozen insurance companies, that use their own coding, and cause massive headaches.

Single payor would eliminate that and billing would be uniform in coding DRGs.

 

[LouderVol]

He's right.

The only thing I've heard mentioned so far that is not totally out of the question is "Medicare for all." Mind you, I don't think it will pass all at once. But it makes sense to gradually expand the groups that participate and pay for it along the way with Medicare taxes to self-sustain.

The cost to fund it for all would be approximately $3 trillion/year. Currently, we spend $1.5 trillion on premiums, and the savings from administrative costs alone would be over $1 trillion. So we can come close just in nixing premiums and cost savings.

And that means no uninsured problem and no deductibles or copays. So there would be substantial savings there, as well.

I don't expect this to happen any time soon. The companies making a TON of money off the current system will fight it and portray it with so much negativity that it just can't pass. But slowly expanding it would. So that's the way to go.

i love when numbers actually get thrown out.

we currently spend 583 billion on medicare. its already 14% of our budget. you want to grow that by more than 5x? Medicare would be 70% of our budget then. Good job saving us money.

you are also double dipping on your savings. 1.5 on premiums & 1 on admin costs. where do you think those admin costs get paid? its part of the premium.

further, there are no savings. instead of paying insurance.com for our coverage we are paying insurance.gov with our taxes.

also just for S&G 3 trillion over our entire population works out to be just over 9k per person. I can only speak for myself but that would be a HUGE increase in my spending for healthcare. and then you have to factor in that not everyone, kids, elderly, unemployed, aren't paying into this and you are increasing the tax burden on middle America by more than 10k per person. probably ends up costing us a lot more.

there are apparently 141 million tax payers. 3 trillion a year would cost us $21,276 each, if we are fair and equal.

tell me again how this is saving us money?

 

[LouderVol]

Well that's just a lie. It isn't the ACA that is causing these problems. A lot of it is the expense and labor that goes into billing and getting paid by a half a dozen insurance companies, that use their own coding, and cause massive headaches.

Single payor would eliminate that and billing would be uniform in coding DRGs.

dude, it got worse with ACA which removed players from the field.

you know ACA added tons of red tape? thats all the government does.

 

[Obsessed]

Well that's just a lie. It isn't the ACA that is causing these problems. A lot of it is the expense and labor that goes into billing and getting paid by a half a dozen insurance companies, that use their own coding, and cause massive headaches.

Single payor would eliminate that and billing would be uniform in coding DRGs.

Wrong.

 

[T-TownVol]

Well that's just a lie. It isn't the ACA that is causing these problems. A lot of it is the expense and labor that goes into billing and getting paid by a half a dozen insurance companies, that use their own coding, and cause massive headaches.

Single payor would eliminate that and billing would be uniform in coding DRGs.

The coming shortage of doctors can be blamed on Obamacare

https://www.americanthinker.com/.../the_coming_shortage_of_doctors_can_be_blame...
May 31, 2017 - This is due to a combination of fewer people entering medical school and a huge number of doctors indicating they will takeearly retirement. The blame for so many doctors leaving the profession can be placed on Congress and the regulatory burden placed on physiciansby Obamacare.

 

[lawgator1]

Wrong.

Thanks for the valuable insight. I will have to check on that.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Well that's just a lie. It isn't the ACA that is causing these problems. A lot of it is the expense and labor that goes into billing and getting paid by a half a dozen insurance companies, that use their own coding, and cause massive headaches.

Single payor would eliminate that and billing would be uniform in coding DRGs.

You are ****ing full of ****.

 

[T-TownVol]

Doctor Shortages Explode Thanks To ObamaCare

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/doctor-shortages-obamacare-ehr/
Aug 20, 2018 - Health Reform: A year before ObamaCare became law, an IBD/TIPP Poll warned that it would lead to doctor shortages because many would quit or retire early. ... Another survey found that nearly two-thirds ofdoctors feel burned out, depressed or both. This is already having a significant effect on patient access to doctors.

 

[Obsessed]

Thanks for the valuable insight. I will have to check on that.

You should instead of making **** up