“Private insurance companies negotiate payment rates with hospitals. Privately insured patients make up 32 percent of the typical hospital’s volume of patients. Private insurance company payment rates vary widely. Larger insurance companies typically are better positioned to demand bigger discounts.”
These are negotiated rates that need regulation. M4A is an economic restructuring of Medicare and not all of it is positive, or even preferred. But, it does benefit employers a great deal, and healthcare well they look out very well for themselves.
As @fern states, what gets charged and what gets paid are two separate things in private insurance systems. In Medicare, they are probably not. While I am all for M4A, this article does not supply a strong argument for it, IMHO.
Indeed, there are negotiated rates in Medicare and Medicaid too. It is the core administrative changes and funding that put people at risk.
The article like the Rand research is just telling one side of this to get broader appeal is my guess.
(I didn’t mean the article is biased)
I really didn’t find bias so much as vagueness and a lack of rigor. As to Medicare and Medicaid are those negotiated on a state-by-state basis or a provider-by-provider basis?
They then take that money and invest it in the market. Anyone notice any hospitals closing over the pandemic? How are Tenet, et al doing on the Dow?
I agree, there wasn’t really a conclusion one way or the other, inference maybe.
Medicare funding is federal and Medicaid is State and Federal, Within that relationship in how services are provided including private insurance. Even Medicaid uses private administration now as part of the ACA. So to make a long story short, I would say both.
“We cannot survive in that kind of the world,” Tom Nickels, an executive vice president at the American Hospital Association (AHA), told the Times .
Tom Nickels, senior vice president of federal relations
Base salary: $462,252
Bonuses and incentives: $45,959
Other reportable compensation: $196,500
Retirement and other deferred compensation: $151,122
Total compensation: $885,655
We should get the profit motive out of medical care completely, and eliminate health insurance companies.
It works well in other countries that way, and it could work here.
Too many hospitals, imaging labs, and doctors are only in it for the money, and they don’t care about patients.
As always, you find a way to disrespect Biden and the Democrats, no matter what the topic, and no matter how specious.
Trump is suing to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with nothing.
Obama/Biden did at least a little good with Obamacare.
But yet, all you can do is spew profanity at Joe Biden.
Trump and the RS, albeit in his usual bumbling and usual their cruel way, did RomneyCare a favor by overturning the individual mandate, which was one of many things about RomneyCare that I hated.
And lo and behold, more people bought insurance through Romneycare than when the individual mandate was in place. So Obama and his experts were wrong, and people like us were right on that one:
With an “all in” EIM4A plan that eliminates private health insurance, the bargaining position of EIM4A becomes much stronger against hospital systems and pharmaceutical companies, than what they have today with the patchwork of government and private insurance, correct? Which should mean even lower costs for these services and products than Medicare is experiencing today.
Well, the exact nature of this has yet to be finalized. I guess it would be possible but with a loss of accountability and the same in funding sources. I think pharmaceutical interests are too well insulated for this to have a desired outcome, especially as Zed has pointed out and the global trade rules on drugs. One of the advantages of negotiation of drug prices is already being done by the large pharmaceutical interests. There are other ways to do that. Additionally, it doesn’t really eliminate private insurance, it changes it though.
“Obama/Biden did at least a little good with Obamacare.”
Why should you or I be happy with “a little good”, when dems held both chambers of congress and the WH at the time, and could have passed M4A? Look at who’s receiving bribes from health insurance companies, and it’s not hard to figure out why we ended up with RomneyCare, that 30 million+ can’t afford, instead of M4A where everyone is covered, like every other industrialized country in the world. My god, Vietnam has universal healthcare, but we “can’t afford it”.
Vietnamese doctors are paid much less for one thing, they are not equivalent. Only sixteen countries meet universal health coverage using single payer, the others are a combination of systems.
Apples and oranges, Americans pay much, much, more into their system than Vietnam citizens do. And referencing your first reply, I can’t agree, the big pharma companies will do what ever we say if they believe US tax dollars were about to dry up, especially the dollars we give them for R&D. As far as the trade deals, they’re going to have to be broken soon or later anyway, might as well be sooner.
What do you mean Vietnamese doctors “are not equivalent”, we used to get the same excuses for years, when talking about the system in Canada, until most citizens were educated other wise.
Vietnamese doctors are not equivalent in terms of pay and benefits, either is the system they work in.
Big pharma is an entirely different discussion and Medicare 4 All does not solve that problem. Nor does it some of the other issues, it restructures how it is paid from funding sources by global budgets and regulates patients. As this article points out, it reduces costs to employers. What do think the average savings would be for patients?
Canada’s system is only marginally better than the U.S. they rank 30th and we are 37th. The have better access and a few other things. I don’t think it can all be attributed to single payer though.
I understand Vietnamese doctors aren’t paid the same, nor are their hospital systems, but they also don’t pay anywhere near what Americans do for their medical care.
Disagree with the big pharma issue, the link below makes my case for savings on healthcare costs and pharmaceutical costs, with a IEM4A system.
My point about the Canadian system, was the American people for years were lied to by the hospitals and insurance companies, telling the people Canada’s system was inferior to our system, it wasn’t, and never was. This was used to squelch calls for a M4A system by the people.
lowering the Medicare age just adds more risk to the risk pool, and I can’t imagine Biden doesn’t know it.
the economics doesn’t work unless everyone, including the young and the strong, are in the pool.
Great we have some agreement that all single payer systems are not equal.
I read your opinion article from Diane Archer, I found it rather vague and biased. It doesn’t address some of the additional costs of transition and I wouldn’t base my decision on this article. There is no doubt some reduced costs but there is more to it than that.