All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repeal the ACA ("Obamacare") and yet there seems little discussion about the very important basics:
1) SHOULD our society guarantee healthcare to all of our citizens? Almost all nations do. It would be the Christian thing to do. BUT - most nations do not have the military spending that we do. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to past, present, or future wars (this includes VA costs, nuclear weapons costs, etc. that are not in the official military budget). Even if it is a moral imperative, can we afford to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this? Some studies show that providing basic care costs less - making sure that diabetics can get care, etc., saves a lot of money in the long run. Protagonists argue that even when people get Medicaid they still use the ER - but that is because almost no physicians accept Medicaid. A "Medicare-for-All" program would be widely accepted (for physicians who want to be paid...).

2) There is a lot of talk about premiums but no talk about costs. American health care costs about $9,000 per year per person. NO ONE will ever be able to get cheap health insurance again. People who say they used too get insurance for $200 are confused - their employer was paying much of their premium. Costs for premiums have risen over the years as states have required coverage for things such as mammograms. The ACA required much more coverage - that is one reason the premiums have become so expensive. I was paying $25,000 per year for a family of three. When I had a colonoscopy I paid zero for that service, which otherwise would have cost about $5,000.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would allow people to find cheap insurance that doesn't cover a lot of things. Would I like to buy insurance that doesn't cover cigarette smokers? Sure - I would save a bundle! But states do regulate insurance. If you live in Florida and have insurance from Delaware and have a problem, who is going to care? No one!

Medicare for all would reduce costs. Insurance company overhead adds as much as 25% to our health care costs. Medicare has an overhead of less than 8%. Having a tight prescription formulary, like the VA, would also help cut costs.

Things to consider...

Like most lefties, you are at the very least being deceptive or lying by omission. You conveniently leave out the FACT that one of the most significant contributors to our high health care cost is the LACK of tort reform. Why do you leave that out? People can come to their on conclusions but I am sure it has something to do with YOUR deceptive agenda. You seem to say that making our system more like the VA healthcare system would solve many problems. That is rich. The VA system is awful. If you like the VA system we have then you will love a single payer government sponsored health care system. I think most would not choose that if given the choice. You imply that the reason we do not have a national health care system for all is because we spend so much on our military and defense. That is rubbish and at the end yet another lie pushed by the left.

You say most countries have healthcare for all their citizens. That for the most part is true. But again, what you conspicuously and probably purposely leave out is that not one of those countries has the gauntlet of lawyers standing just outside the door of the doctor's office waiting for their cut. Not one. You also seem to imply that because another country has national health care that is superior care to ours. Not so, and I know that first hand. If you want to take a quick, albeit unscientific measure of the quality AND availability of other nation's healthcare just go to M.D. Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Emory or the Mayo Clinic and take a poll of the throngs of foreigners that are coming here to get their health care needs. It is stunning.

If you are going to push one of your agenda filled, deceptive and biased opinions at least try and be a little bit intellectually honest. For a change.

All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repeal the ACA ("Obamacare") and yet there seems little discussion about the very important basics:
1) SHOULD our society guarantee healthcare to all of our citizens? Almost all nations do. It would be the Christian thing to do. BUT - most nations do not have the military spending that we do. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to past, present, or future wars (this includes VA costs, nuclear weapons costs, etc. that are not in the official military budget). Even if it is a moral imperative, can we afford to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this? Some studies show that providing basic care costs less - making sure that diabetics can get care, etc., saves a lot of money in the long run. Protagonists argue that even when people get Medicaid they still use the ER - but that is because almost no physicians accept Medicaid. A "Medicare-for-All" program would be widely accepted (for physicians who want to be paid...).

2) There is a lot of talk about premiums but no talk about costs. American health care costs about $9,000 per year per person. NO ONE will ever be able to get cheap health insurance again. People who say they used too get insurance for $200 are confused - their employer was paying much of their premium. Costs for premiums have risen over the years as states have required coverage for things such as mammograms. The ACA required much more coverage - that is one reason the premiums have become so expensive. I was paying $25,000 per year for a family of three. When I had a colonoscopy I paid zero for that service, which otherwise would have cost about $5,000.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would allow people to find cheap insurance that doesn't cover a lot of things. Would I like to buy insurance that doesn't cover cigarette smokers? Sure - I would save a bundle! But states do regulate insurance. If you live in Florida and have insurance from Delaware and have a problem, who is going to care? No one!

Medicare for all would reduce costs. Insurance company overhead adds as much as 25% to our health care costs. Medicare has an overhead of less than 8%. Having a tight prescription formulary, like the VA, would also help cut costs.

Things to consider...

There are other things to consider:

1. Cost of services. All medical charges are assigned a CPT (Common Procedural Terminology) Code that has an assigned value. These values are pretty outrageous. Insurance companies pay a discounted fee based on the CPT code, but an individual coming in off the street will pay the full cost. The difference may be 10's of thousands of dollars.

2. The CPT code is fully owned by the American Medical Association, an association that does not represent but 25%-30% of US Physicians AMA Membership Surges. The government endorses this and the AMA makes a lot of money by licensing the CPT codes to insurers, providers, hospitals, etc.

Until there is a true cost of each procedure that is the same whether you choose to self insure or use an insurance policy, there will never be a true comparison available to any.

This is only one little point in this huge morass.

All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repeal the ACA ("Obamacare") and yet there seems little discussion about the very important basics:
1) SHOULD our society guarantee healthcare to all of our citizens? Almost all nations do. It would be the Christian thing to do. BUT - most nations do not have the military spending that we do. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to past, present, or future wars (this includes VA costs, nuclear weapons costs, etc. that are not in the official military budget). Even if it is a moral imperative, can we afford to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this? Some studies show that providing basic care costs less - making sure that diabetics can get care, etc., saves a lot of money in the long run. Protagonists argue that even when people get Medicaid they still use the ER - but that is because almost no physicians accept Medicaid. A "Medicare-for-All" program would be widely accepted (for physicians who want to be paid...).

2) There is a lot of talk about premiums but no talk about costs. American health care costs about $9,000 per year per person. NO ONE will ever be able to get cheap health insurance again. People who say they used too get insurance for $200 are confused - their employer was paying much of their premium. Costs for premiums have risen over the years as states have required coverage for things such as mammograms. The ACA required much more coverage - that is one reason the premiums have become so expensive. I was paying $25,000 per year for a family of three. When I had a colonoscopy I paid zero for that service, which otherwise would have cost about $5,000.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would allow people to find cheap insurance that doesn't cover a lot of things. Would I like to buy insurance that doesn't cover cigarette smokers? Sure - I would save a bundle! But states do regulate insurance. If you live in Florida and have insurance from Delaware and have a problem, who is going to care? No one!

Medicare for all would reduce costs. Insurance company overhead adds as much as 25% to our health care costs. Medicare has an overhead of less than 8%. Having a tight prescription formulary, like the VA, would also help cut costs.

Things to consider...

A few years ago the American College of Radiology received permission to collect cost data from Radiology Groups around the country (This avoided any potential Federal rules breaking). The cost variation in the cost of provision of services was smaller than the variation in patient charges and was on the order of 10-15% nationwide.

Of course the problem with such studies is that they are not all inclusive. There have been many other studies, but it is like comparing apples and oranges.

If there was a bright spot in the ACA (and I am pretty neutral on this) it was that uncompensated care at hospitals went down.

The problem with negotiating fees is that in an emergency situation that is not possible, and to be frank, most of our population are not that sophisticated.

This is a huge problem. It is not going to be solved overnight. Medicare is a mess that has only worsened over the years with arcane rules in a fast changing landscape. For instance, why is Medicare prohibited from negotiating drug prices?

If you have the answer then run for Congress because no one currently in office has a clue (both major parties included).

All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repeal the ACA ("Obamacare") and yet there seems little discussion about the very important basics:
1) SHOULD our society guarantee healthcare to all of our citizens? Almost all nations do. It would be the Christian thing to do. BUT - most nations do not have the military spending that we do. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to past, present, or future wars (this includes VA costs, nuclear weapons costs, etc. that are not in the official military budget). Even if it is a moral imperative, can we afford to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this? Some studies show that providing basic care costs less - making sure that diabetics can get care, etc., saves a lot of money in the long run. Protagonists argue that even when people get Medicaid they still use the ER - but that is because almost no physicians accept Medicaid. A "Medicare-for-All" program would be widely accepted (for physicians who want to be paid...).

2) There is a lot of talk about premiums but no talk about costs. American health care costs about $9,000 per year per person. NO ONE will ever be able to get cheap health insurance again. People who say they used too get insurance for $200 are confused - their employer was paying much of their premium. Costs for premiums have risen over the years as states have required coverage for things such as mammograms. The ACA required much more coverage - that is one reason the premiums have become so expensive. I was paying $25,000 per year for a family of three. When I had a colonoscopy I paid zero for that service, which otherwise would have cost about $5,000.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would allow people to find cheap insurance that doesn't cover a lot of things. Would I like to buy insurance that doesn't cover cigarette smokers? Sure - I would save a bundle! But states do regulate insurance. If you live in Florida and have insurance from Delaware and have a problem, who is going to care? No one!

Medicare for all would reduce costs. Insurance company overhead adds as much as 25% to our health care costs. Medicare has an overhead of less than 8%. Having a tight prescription formulary, like the VA, would also help cut costs.

Things to consider...

We are a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution is the law of the land. As the Constitution says nothing about health care, the government is under no obligation to provide it. That said the easiest fix for the cost of health care is to control Tort Law. A surgeon must pay upwards of 300 grand for malpractice. A hospital pays a great deal more. As much as 30% of health care cost is medico-legal not clinical. If someone is truly injured as a result of poor care, or error, they deserve to be properly compensated. But the do not deserve to be made wealthy. One must remember that a poor resuklt is not necessarily malpractice. The current system ignors the free market. While ther needs to be some regulations the federal government does not belong in the health care business.

All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repeal the ACA ("Obamacare") and yet there seems little discussion about the very important basics:
1) SHOULD our society guarantee healthcare to all of our citizens? Almost all nations do. It would be the Christian thing to do. BUT - most nations do not have the military spending that we do. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to past, present, or future wars (this includes VA costs, nuclear weapons costs, etc. that are not in the official military budget). Even if it is a moral imperative, can we afford to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this? Some studies show that providing basic care costs less - making sure that diabetics can get care, etc., saves a lot of money in the long run. Protagonists argue that even when people get Medicaid they still use the ER - but that is because almost no physicians accept Medicaid. A "Medicare-for-All" program would be widely accepted (for physicians who want to be paid...).

2) There is a lot of talk about premiums but no talk about costs. American health care costs about $9,000 per year per person. NO ONE will ever be able to get cheap health insurance again. People who say they used too get insurance for $200 are confused - their employer was paying much of their premium. Costs for premiums have risen over the years as states have required coverage for things such as mammograms. The ACA required much more coverage - that is one reason the premiums have become so expensive. I was paying $25,000 per year for a family of three. When I had a colonoscopy I paid zero for that service, which otherwise would have cost about $5,000.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would allow people to find cheap insurance that doesn't cover a lot of things. Would I like to buy insurance that doesn't cover cigarette smokers? Sure - I would save a bundle! But states do regulate insurance. If you live in Florida and have insurance from Delaware and have a problem, who is going to care? No one!

Medicare for all would reduce costs. Insurance company overhead adds as much as 25% to our health care costs. Medicare has an overhead of less than 8%. Having a tight prescription formulary, like the VA, would also help cut costs.

Things to consider...

As usual. you are off an a rant with partial facts, have truths and distortions--probably used on something you heard somewhere. Here is a link to a comprehensive study done by the NIH:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048809/

Because its long and complicated and you will probably not be able to get someone to read it to you, here is the conclusion:

"Conclusion

The medical liability system costs the nation more than $55 billion annually. This is less than some imaginative estimates put forward in the health reform debate, and it represents a small fraction of total health care spending. Yet in absolute dollars, the amount is not trivial.

Moreover, to the extent that some of these costs stem from meritless malpractice litigation, 21 they are particularly objectionable to health care providers. The psychological and political value of addressing this grievance could be considerable.

Reforms that offer the prospect of reducing these costs have modest potential to exert downward pressure on overall health spending. Reforms to the health care delivery system, such as alterations to the fee-for-service reimbursement system and the incentives it provides for overuse, probably provide greater opportunities for savings.

Some aspects of federal health reform may reduce medical liability costs. Extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured may reduce their need to file malpractice claims to recoup medical expenses occasioned by injuries caused by malpractice.

Additionally, in states that have adopted “collateral-source offsets”—meaning that costs covered by health insurance cannot be recovered by malpractice plaintiffs—greater prevalence of health insurance will mean more frequent offsets, lower total indemnity payments, and less “double payment” of medical expenses. A farther-reaching reform that merits discussion would be to impose a federal collateral-source offset in connection with the move to universal coverage. In these respects, health reform and liability reform may have unexpected synergies in bending our cost curve down."