4 ms·

... but "medicaid for all" is the proposed medical coverage reform.

by commandlinefan 5y ago

opnitro 5y ago
ie: there would be no "application process" as everyone would have it.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  Do you really honestly believe that the paperwork burden would disappear if the government took over medical care? Can you think of anything else the government runs which is free of mindless bureaucracy?
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Yes. When you turn 65, you receive Medicare benefits after a pretty painless application form, which is mostly to obtain coordination of benefits information for retiree private plans Aftwards, you have very little interaction with Medicare, other than if you are placed in a nursing home or rehab, at which point you may need to argue for more benefits as the rehab will try to maximize their revenue by kicking you out after 90 days.
  - GlenTheMachine 5y ago
    Ever looked at the paperwork burden of private insurance for a child with a rare medical condition? I have. My wife and I spent a year - literally twelve months - filling out reams of paperwork to get a rare medication covered. And eventually failed. There did not appear to be any end to the paperwork. It was itself clearly punitive, they designed it so you would likely fail so they wouldn't have to cover the condition.
  - jefurii 5y ago
    This is a false talking point. My mom was a marriage and family therapist until she retired, and the burden of dealing with private insurance paperwork - private insurance - was so onerous that she and other therapists she knew simply had to stop dealing with insurance. Medicare paperwork was simple compared to that.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Would the paperwork disappear? No. But I'd bet it would be a lot less. My spouse visited a doctor in January 2020, and we recently got yet another Explination of Benefits about that visit, which is probably the 15th time they've sent one. I wish I was exagerating.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    As someone who deals with medicaid paperwork as well as private insurance paperwork. It's basically exactly the same from the insuree's POV. I give the hospital my child's medicaid number, they take it from there. Really pretty much that simple. No prior approval. No crazy paperwork. Just give 'em the number and you are off to the races. I'm sure it would be worse for elective surgeries, but that's not really what anyone is arguing for.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    We already know the answer to that via Medicare. It certainly has its issues, but it doesn't seem like retirees on Medicare are drowning in paperwork.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I think people going bankrupt with medical debt or outright dying through lack of care would still prefer beauracracy and paperwork to nothing at all. Besides which, unless you have the best gold plated insurance plans or a mediocre plan and never need to go out-of-network, mindless beuracracy and tons of paperwork describes the status quo of private insurance. And annecdotally, my father on Medicare has far few issues of that sort than I do on my (above average) employer's plan.
caycep 5y ago
No - Medicare for all is what is being proposed. There is a stark difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare, for those who can enjoy it (65+ or meeting criteria for chronically disabled), is pretty good insurance. You have your pick of specialists or primary cares, it reimburses providers pretty well, and ironically, processes claims faster than private insurance. There are some glitches that should be fixed sure, but it is definitely viable as a healthcare plan. Medicaid in comparison, is bare bones - the political reasons I'll let other people comment more, but access to care is severely restricted, it doesn't pay providers enough to keep the lights on, and is not really capable of providing any semblance of the modern standard of care.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Medicaid also varies by state. South Carolina for a long time did not provide any “optional” coverage, and would advise some people to move in with relatives in New York or Massachusetts to enroll there.
- ars 5y ago
  In my state it's precisely the opposite - Medicare is horrible, they only pay 80% until you meet a deductible. Never mind the money - just the hassle of the paperwork of paying all those bills will make anyone crazy. In contrast Medicaid is awesome - zero copay or deductible, just show up and use your insurance card. There is also Medicare Advantage, which actually is quite good - and it's private insurance that the government pays for. So maybe we don't need either "for all" programs, but rather a universal subsidy for people to buy their own insurance. > it doesn't pay providers enough to keep the lights on That's true about both Medicaid and Medicare, which is why neither will ever be offered to all, not without a salary cut to Doctors.
ineedasername 5y ago
Not quite, but I'm not sure what your point is. People opposed to such reform often use the arguments I cited, and I specifically use the failure of medicaid in this article article to demonstrate the flaws of those arguments. Those arguments' flaws aren't corrected with the implementation of a bad system.
- kelnos 5y ago
  That would be a specious argument, then. The failure of Medicaid in this article isn't a failure to get coverage for someone on Medicaid; it was a failure to even get accepted into the Medicaid program in the first place. If you have Medicare for All, you don't have to worry about getting into the program, because everyone already has it, no?

... but "medicaid for all" is the proposed medical coverage reform.

opnitro 5y ago

ie: there would be no "application process" as everyone would have it.

commandlinefan 5y ago
Do you really honestly believe that the paperwork burden would disappear if the government took over medical care? Can you think of anything else the government runs which is free of mindless bureaucracy?
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Yes. When you turn 65, you receive Medicare benefits after a pretty painless application form, which is mostly to obtain coordination of benefits information for retiree private plans Aftwards, you have very little interaction with Medicare, other than if you are placed in a nursing home or rehab, at which point you may need to argue for more benefits as the rehab will try to maximize their revenue by kicking you out after 90 days.
- GlenTheMachine 5y ago
  Ever looked at the paperwork burden of private insurance for a child with a rare medical condition? I have. My wife and I spent a year - literally twelve months - filling out reams of paperwork to get a rare medication covered. And eventually failed. There did not appear to be any end to the paperwork. It was itself clearly punitive, they designed it so you would likely fail so they wouldn't have to cover the condition.
- jefurii 5y ago
  This is a false talking point. My mom was a marriage and family therapist until she retired, and the burden of dealing with private insurance paperwork - private insurance - was so onerous that she and other therapists she knew simply had to stop dealing with insurance. Medicare paperwork was simple compared to that.
- toast0 5y ago
  Would the paperwork disappear? No. But I'd bet it would be a lot less. My spouse visited a doctor in January 2020, and we recently got yet another Explination of Benefits about that visit, which is probably the 15th time they've sent one. I wish I was exagerating.
- cogman10 5y ago
  As someone who deals with medicaid paperwork as well as private insurance paperwork. It's basically exactly the same from the insuree's POV. I give the hospital my child's medicaid number, they take it from there. Really pretty much that simple. No prior approval. No crazy paperwork. Just give 'em the number and you are off to the races. I'm sure it would be worse for elective surgeries, but that's not really what anyone is arguing for.
- kelnos 5y ago
  We already know the answer to that via Medicare. It certainly has its issues, but it doesn't seem like retirees on Medicare are drowning in paperwork.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I think people going bankrupt with medical debt or outright dying through lack of care would still prefer beauracracy and paperwork to nothing at all. Besides which, unless you have the best gold plated insurance plans or a mediocre plan and never need to go out-of-network, mindless beuracracy and tons of paperwork describes the status quo of private insurance. And annecdotally, my father on Medicare has far few issues of that sort than I do on my (above average) employer's plan.

caycep 5y ago

No - Medicare for all is what is being proposed. There is a stark difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare, for those who can enjoy it (65+ or meeting criteria for chronically disabled), is pretty good insurance. You have your pick of specialists or primary cares, it reimburses providers pretty well, and ironically, processes claims faster than private insurance. There are some glitches that should be fixed sure, but it is definitely viable as a healthcare plan. Medicaid in comparison, is bare bones - the political reasons I'll let other people comment more, but access to care is severely restricted, it doesn't pay providers enough to keep the lights on, and is not really capable of providing any semblance of the modern standard of care.

Spooky23 5y ago
Medicaid also varies by state. South Carolina for a long time did not provide any “optional” coverage, and would advise some people to move in with relatives in New York or Massachusetts to enroll there.
ars 5y ago
In my state it's precisely the opposite - Medicare is horrible, they only pay 80% until you meet a deductible. Never mind the money - just the hassle of the paperwork of paying all those bills will make anyone crazy. In contrast Medicaid is awesome - zero copay or deductible, just show up and use your insurance card. There is also Medicare Advantage, which actually is quite good - and it's private insurance that the government pays for. So maybe we don't need either "for all" programs, but rather a universal subsidy for people to buy their own insurance. > it doesn't pay providers enough to keep the lights on That's true about both Medicaid and Medicare, which is why neither will ever be offered to all, not without a salary cut to Doctors.

ineedasername 5y ago

Not quite, but I'm not sure what your point is. People opposed to such reform often use the arguments I cited, and I specifically use the failure of medicaid in this article article to demonstrate the flaws of those arguments. Those arguments' flaws aren't corrected with the implementation of a bad system.

kelnos 5y ago
That would be a specious argument, then. The failure of Medicaid in this article isn't a failure to get coverage for someone on Medicaid; it was a failure to even get accepted into the Medicaid program in the first place. If you have Medicare for All, you don't have to worry about getting into the program, because everyone already has it, no?