Socialism Fails Everytime ...

[ClearwaterVol]

Universal “healthcare”, the retardation of the left.

What does “healthcare” entail? How much will it cost everyone? Destroying a country for a service is idiotic.

I live in an area where we have lots of seasonal visitors. I have never heard someone from another country talk about how they wish they had our healthcare system. Quite the opposite actually. Visitors from the UK are stunned about how politicians have us believing that our healthcare system is the envy of the world and to provide healthcare would be detrimental to our way of life.

 

[Mick]

I think the taste of ACA showed me all i needed to see of government involved healthcare. Medicare and the VA system is wrought with fraud, abuse and mismanagement, just as another example of something the government does epically bad. ( doesn't matter who's in charge) I don't know what ppl expected to happen when Obama said " ya we want to cover everybody and make the gov responsible" My first thought was that's gonna be a fail.
The further you expand government involvement into private life, the closer you move into a socialistic struggle.

Medicare fraud is something that happens when Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals, or anyone in the healthcare industry tries to rip off the government and the taxpayers. That is your industry little girl wrought with corruption, Fraud, mismanagement, and skyrocketing healthcare cost.

 

[hog88]

Medicare fraud is something that happens when Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals, or anyone in the healthcare industry tries to rip off the government and the taxpayers. That is your industry little girl wrought with corruption, Fraud, mismanagement, and skyrocketing healthcare cost.

And single payer is going to stop all of that right?

 

[luthervol]

And single payer is going to stop all of that right?

Of course not, but it will slow it down significantly.
There will always be people who try to game the system.
In a country where many attempt to portray greed as a positive characteristic, there will be even more trying to game the system....and feeling justifiably great about it.

 

[hog88]

Of course not, but it will slow it down significantly.
There will always be people who try to game the system.
In a country where many attempt to portray greed as a positive characteristic, there will be even more trying to game the system....and feeling justifiably great about it.

I have got to hear this. How will single payer slow fraud down?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You think the insurance system that we currently have is not wrought with fraud?

 

[hog88]

You think the insurance system that we currently have is not wrought with fraud?

I would say the private system has less fraud per $ spent than gov administered plans.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I would say the private system has less fraud per $ spent than gov administered plans.

I would say even with the fraud the gov. administered plans are paying less per procedure.

 

[luthervol]

I would say the private system has less fraud per $ spent than gov administered plans.

I would say the private system has a higher rate of unjustifiable prescriptions, unnecessary screenings and tests, inflated costs, and overly aggressive expensive treatments. How much of this would fall under the "fraudulent" category is not really relevant.

 

[hog88]

I would say even with the fraud the gov. administered plans are paying less per procedure.

Might be, that I do not know. I do know that my mother in laws Dr has stopped taking new medicare patients which apparently is becoming more common. Might that be because of the low reimbursement rates and the headache involved?

 

[CABVOL]

I would say even with the fraud the gov. administered plans are paying less per procedure.

Absolutely they are. For my hospital, and others like it (critical access), they pay 98% of expense. Meaning we lose 2% on everything we do that is Medicare and Medicaid. We rely on commercial payors to try to break even or make a little money in order to make payroll, buy new equipment, upgrade aging building structures, etc. Then at the end of the year, if we try to cut expenses, Medicare comes back in and says, "well, you didn't have as many expenses as last year, so give us $300,000 back". $300,000 we don't have.

So if we try to cut expenses, we are screwed. If we try to raise expenses, the community gets mad and quits coming, then we are screwed. There is reason why 80+ hospitals have closed across the US since 2009, with over 600 teetering on the brink of closing today.

But single payor system(the government) will fix it all...

 

[hog88]

I would say the private system has a higher rate of unjustifiable prescriptions, unnecessary screenings and tests, inflated costs, and overly aggressive expensive treatments. How much of this would fall under the "fraudulent" category is not really relevant.

I will not argue those points but all of that is between you, your provider and your insurance company so you have options. If we go to a single payer system all of that will be decided by a bureaucrat and you will have little to no say in your medical care.

 

[Mick]

Absolutely they are. For my hospital, and others like it (critical access), they pay 98% of expense. Meaning we lose 2% on everything we do that is Medicare and Medicaid. We rely on commercial payors to try to break even or make a little money in order to make payroll, buy new equipment, upgrade aging building structures, etc. Then at the end of the year, if we try to cut expenses, Medicare comes back in and says, "well, you didn't have as many expenses as last year, so give us $300,000 back". $300,000 we don't have.

So if we try to cut expenses, we are screwed. If we try to raise expenses, the community gets mad and quits coming, then we are screwed. There is reason why 80+ hospitals have closed across the US since 2009, with over 600 teetering on the brink of closing today.

But single payor system(the government) will fix it all...

Sounds like a failing Hospital to me.

 

[1972 Grad]

Sounds like a failing Hospital to me.

Let 'em fail, right? Smaller communities don't need them as long as there is one left within 100 miles.

 

[volinbham]

It's close to an even split and has been for a long time.

Nowhere close to an even split - even in Scandinavian countries capitalism has considerable precedent over socialism.

The tipping point becomes state control (ownership). Currently they (our government) own defense and some infrastructure.

Your comments about monetary policy are generally not considered "socialism" and instead fall more into the "regulatory" camp.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

A purely capitalist economic system would also fail. We are a mix and always will be.

Why would a purely capitalist system fail?

 

[CABVOL]

Sounds like a failing Hospital to me.

No ****. Do you think we are an isolated situation? I have news for you, we are not. We are a non-profit hospital that always skimmed by, but the ACA regulations absolutely made a tough situation virtually impossible. Critical access hospitals used to get paid 101% of expenses by Medicaid/Medicare, enabling those of us to skimp by, but we skimped by nonetheless. With ACA regulations, that 101% dropped to 98% over a 3 year period. When 70% of one's business is Medicare/Medicaid, it is not a winning situation.

In 2016 (the latest data I have), no hospital in Louisville, KY (close to where I live) made any money on services. One hospital made money and it was due to their investments. These are huge conglomerates. Norton, Baptist, Jewish, etc.

As hospitals continue to close, wait times at larger hospitals will increase, your gallbladder surgery will move up from 3-4 weeks out to 6 months out, etc. That is where we are headed. Until people open their eyes and realize what is really happening, we will continue this trend. Those advocating this, you better not ever complain when you can't get in to see your provider in a timely manner or get that procedure done quickly enough.

 

[volinbham]

Socialism, the dog whistle of the Republicans. Providing healthcare for all does equal a socialist country.

True - it doesn't make the country as a whole socialist.

It also is dependent on what you mean by "providing healthcare". Healthcare and paying for healthcare are distinct.

The UK has true socialized medicine. If we adopted that system over 1/6 of our economy would be socialist.

The ACA is not socialized medicine given the reliance on private insurance and private providers.

Single payer is more socialistic as it nationalizes the health insurance industry; switching it from private ownership to state ownership.


In the larger sense the move in the D party to government as the provider of all needs (healthcare, education (Bernie pushing for free day care for all), guaranteed employment, guaranteed income (whether you cannot or will not work), transportation,...) certainly is lurching towards socialism.

 

[luthervol]

Might be, that I do not know. I do know that my mother in laws Dr has stopped taking new medicare patients which apparently is becoming more common. Might that be because of the low reimbursement rates and the headache involved?

Sounds like a problem that needs to be addressed. I do like the low reimbursement rates angle.

 

[Mick]

No ****. Do you think we are an isolated situation? I have news for you, we are not. We are a non-profit hospital that always skimmed by, but the ACA regulations absolutely made a tough situation virtually impossible. Critical access hospitals used to get paid 101% of expenses by Medicaid/Medicare, enabling those of us to skimp by, but we skimped by nonetheless. With ACA regulations, that 101% dropped to 98% over a 3 year period. When 70% of one's business is Medicare/Medicaid, it is not a winning situation.

In 2016 (the latest data I have), no hospital in Louisville, KY (close to where I live) made any money on services. One hospital made money and it was due to their investments. These are huge conglomerates. Norton, Baptist, Jewish, etc.

As hospitals continue to close, wait times at larger hospitals will increase, your gallbladder surgery will move up from 3-4 weeks out to 6 months out, etc. That is where we are headed. Until people open their eyes and realize what is really happening, we will continue this trend. Those advocating this, you better not ever complain when you can't get in to see your provider in a timely manner or get that procedure done quickly enough.

That is all part of capitalism. The bigger hospital gobble up the smaller ones. Basically your rural hospital needs government money to effectively service the community. Don't appear that the community is opening up their checkbooks either.

 

[luthervol]

I will not argue those points but all of that is between you, your provider and your insurance company so you have options. If we go to a single payer system all of that will be decided by a bureaucrat and you will have little to no say in your medical care.

An individual against an insurance company? The individual often doesn't care because it's the insurance company that is paying and just passing the cost on through higher and higher premiums.
It's the world's most lucrative pyramid scheme with the average person forced to remain on the bottom.

 

[CABVOL]

That is all part of capitalism. The bigger hospital gobble up the smaller ones. Basically your rural hospital needs government money to effectively service the community. Don't appear that the community is opening up their checkbooks either.

The bigger hospitals are failing too. That's just it. Jewish in Louisville is/was up for sale. Main large hospital in Elizabethtown, KY was just sold last year to Baptist. Large hospital in Owensboro, KY is seeking someone to buy them, even though they just recently "bought" a smaller hospital in a neighboring county. One particular entity won't even talk to them until they file for bankruptcy.

They gobble up the smaller hospitals and coverage areas simply to get more people to push through their doors; not for the betterment of the community. With an aging population nationwide, and less providers/hospitals for everyone, it is easy to see where this is all heading. The solution? I really don't know, but I do know that a VA-style ran system is not where we want to go.

 

[hog88]

An individual against an insurance company? The individual often doesn't care because it's the insurance company that is paying and just passing the cost on through higher and higher premiums.
It's the world's most lucrative pyramid scheme with the average person forced to remain on the bottom.

Now just imagine an individual against the monolith of a single payer system.

 

[1972 Grad]

That is all part of capitalism. The bigger hospital gobble up the smaller ones. Basically your rural hospital needs government money to effectively service the community. Don't appear that the community is opening up their checkbooks either.

The fact is that it costs a helluva lot of money to run a hospital. It is like a big hotel (with a lot of empty rooms) in some ways, but the employees are better paid. If individuals had to pay their own bills, the whole industry of healthcare wouldn't be recognizable.

 

[Mick]

The fact is that it costs a helluva lot of money to run a hospital. It is like a big hotel (with a lot of empty rooms) in some ways, but the employees are better paid. If individuals had to pay their own bills, the whole industry of health insurance wouldn't be recognizable.

There, I fixed it.