As a card-carrying curmudgeon, nothing gives me more pleasure than reading an op-ed written by a Progressive and then tearing it to pieces. The Charlotte Observer is a prime source of absurdity, stupidity and outright propaganda for everything government. They put the I in libtard, and we can’t thank them enough for it.
When I read some of these articles. I can’t help but think these people are grasping onto a few strands of reality. Maybe that’s because in a liberal’s utopian worldview, they’re incapable of introspection. Failure is not part of their vocabulary. Why else would they double-down on centralized healthcare when the Affordable Care Act has been anything but. So hey, it’s Medicare for all! Why not!
Here is an excerpt from an op-ed written by a Mr. Bohmfalk advocating for just that:
Medicare is an extremely successful and popular government program, a very good thing for 15 percent of our citizens. As private, for-profit health insurance continues to squeeze enrollees into narrower provider networks and unaffordable cost-sharing, many Americans under 65 are desperate for relief. Most business leaders do not realize that around one-third of every healthcare dollar goes to administration, rather than healthcare. We pay around twice per person what every other country pays for healthcare, the largest share of GDP. Despite being the biggest market, we pay the world’s highest prescription drug prices. Our health outcomes, including life expectancy, rank near the bottom.
Now why is there a narrower field? Could it possibly be that Obamacare forced other insurers and providers out of business thereby squeezing enrollees into narrower networks that are unaffordable? Oh yeah, Americans need relief, alright. They need relief from an obtrusive and authoritarian federal government.
Now let’s address administrative cost. Did Obamacare reduce this bugaboo? NO! They exasperated it. Do a search on the internet and you’ll see pages of articles lamenting this government created monstrosity. But once again, this assertion of lower administrative cost is deceptive. Here is an excerpt from an article pre-Obamacare:
A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)
Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance.
Medicare is an extremely successful and popular government program, a very good thing for 15 percent of our citizens. As private, for-profit health insurance continues to squeeze enrollees into narrower provider networks and unaffordable cost-sharing, many Americans under 65 are desperate for relief. Most business leaders do not realize that around one-third of every healthcare dollar goes to administration, rather than healthcare. We pay around twice per person what every other country pays for healthcare, the largest share of GDP. Despite being the biggest market, we pay the world’s highest prescription drug prices. Our health outcomes, including life expectancy, rank near the bottom.
Now why is there a narrower field? Could it possibly be that Obamacare forced other insurers and providers out of business thereby squeezing enrollees into narrower networks that are unaffordable? Oh yeah, Americans need relief, alright. They need relief from an obtrusive and authoritarian federal government.
Now let’s address administrative cost. Did Obamacare reduce this bugaboo? NO! They exasperated it. Do a search on the internet and you’ll see pages of articles lamenting this government created monstrosity. But once again, this assertion of lower administrative cost is deceptive. Here is an excerpt from an article pre-Obamacare:
A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)
Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance.
Yes, remember this, because Mr. Bohmfalk is going to double-down.
And as for paying twice per person in other countries, all I have to say is what do you expect? Do you expect third-world prices in a first-world country? Of course, we’re going to pay more than the rest of the world, simply because our standard of living is higher. This is basic economics.
However, if liberals insist on everything “free,” we could be like Venezuela, where healthcare is nonexistent thanks to socialism. See what free gets you?
However, if liberals insist on everything “free,” we could be like Venezuela, where healthcare is nonexistent thanks to socialism. See what free gets you?
Still , healthcare would be cheaper in the United States had we an actual free market system where the patient/consumer actually participated in a cost/benefit analysis rather than being dependent on a third-party payer system. Competition reduces cost whereas monopolies reduce access and inflate the prices of goods and services. Make no mistake about it, Obamacare monopolized our healthcare system.
Mr. Bohmfalk continues:
Except in the Medicare population. Once people have access to healthcare, their health dramatically improves. Medicare has a secret for the rest of the country: We can expand Medicare to cover everyone, improve it to cover prescription drugs and eliminate deductibles and co-payments, and save money in the process. The secret lies in Medicare’s 2-3 percent administrative overhead, a fraction of private insurance companies’. Politicians commonly campaign on eliminating waste, but their promises rarely materialize. With Improved Medicare for All, we can convert hundreds of billions in administrative waste to actual, life-saving healthcare.
Improving Medicare can be a fairly straightforward process, as described in the House bill HR 676. The taxes to fund it would be less than current healthcare spending for 95 percent of households — a clear win-win for the vast majority of us. Employers would no longer be burdened with providing health insurance and could better compete globally. Everyone truly could choose and keep their doctors, if not their current expensive and restrictive insurance plans.
Mind you, Mr. Bohmfalk stated earlier that 15% of the population is currently on Medicare. According to the trustees of Medicare, this program is scheduled for insolvency in the year 2026 - three years earlier than forecasted. And liberals want to expand it? Their vision of utopia is in reality, a dystopia. Oh yeah, don't forget, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. LOL!!!
Source:
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article215566870.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/02/01/the-aca-increased-rather-than-decreased-administrative-costs-of-health-insurance/#29bc4ef09e77
https://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/spending-and-overhead-costs-explode-under-obamacare/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#3b9e7901140d
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-pol-medicare-finances-20180605-story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment