Medicare: Just as I suspected!

Quote: Mosca

....F has no deductible, but costs more than $185 more than G. 2019 is the last year for part F, get it now or don’t get it.

What do you mean, get it now or don't get it? I have it, do I need to find something different?

Quote: petroglyph

What do you mean, get it now or don't get it? I have it, do I need to find something different?

If you already have it, you keep it. If you don’t have it, this is your last chance to get it.

For SOOPOO:

My question really doesn't fit the topic but is does involve Medicare so I am asking it here.

Recently Bernie Sanders had 2 stents implanted. I believe the stents were implanted within 24 hours of him experiencing chest discomfort.

If Bernie's only health coverage was the current Medicare Insurance, would he have been treated (including the surgery) as quickly?

Quote: Mosca

If you already have it, you keep it. If you don’t have it, this is your last chance to get it.

Thinking about it
Have employer health care
but
Looking to retire the next several years

Quote: fleaswatter

For SOOPOO:

My question really doesn't fit the topic but is does involve Medicare so I am asking it here.

Recently Bernie Sanders had 2 stents implanted. I believe the stents were implanted within 24 hours of him experiencing chest discomfort.

If Bernie's only health coverage was the current Medicare Insurance, would he have been treated (including the surgery) as quickly?

Essentially yes. Any ER that finds myocardial ischemia has a protocol that tries to get you ‘revascularized’ ASAP. there is no way that insurance plays into it. Hospitals will give you specific statistics on ‘time at our door to time in the cath lab’. There are a bunch of ER type events that insurance really plays no role in.

Quote: SOOPOO

Essentially yes. Any ER that finds myocardial ischemia has a protocol that tries to get you ‘revascularized’ ASAP. there is no way that insurance plays into it. Hospitals will give you specific statistics on ‘time at our door to time in the cath lab’. There are a bunch of ER type events that insurance really plays no role in.

Thank you for the answer.

I wanted to ask you because I had read the following article and wondered if it was full of BS:

Bernie Sanders Could Have Died Under Medicare-for-All

Depends on what you believe Bernie's plan is.
That site says it will "reduce everyone to a sub-Medicaid system with limited care options"

this one
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

says his plan "includes an especially robust set of benefits. It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, lab services, maternity care, and prescription drugs as well as vision and dental benefits."

Neither of those has much to do with what treatment you will get in an emergency room.

Quote: Dalex64

Depends on what you believe Bernie's plan is.
That site says it will "reduce everyone to a sub-Medicaid system with limited care options"

this one
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

says his plan "includes an especially robust set of benefits. It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, lab services, maternity care, and prescription drugs as well as vision and dental benefits."

Neither of those has much to do with what treatment you will get in an emergency room.

No one will believe me, but the reason I fear Medicare for all is that the ridiculously low payments that Medicare can pay because it is a LAW are subsidized by private insurers. A case that pays me $500 from private insurance pays around $125 from Medicare. With more onerous documentation requirements. If all cases paid anesthesiologists Medicare rates there would be no anesthesiologists. Not instantaneously. But soon.
You think the government in its plan is expecting to triple what it pays now? To get to 60% of insurance? Nope. They are probably expecting to pay LESS. The big lie in 'Medicare for all' is their cost projections.

But as far as emergency care, today you are correct. But Medicare for all would lead to a massive shortage of practicing doctors. It's a pipe dream.

Quote: SOOPOO

No one will believe me, but the reason I fear Medicare for all is that the ridiculously low payments that Medicare can pay because it is a LAW are subsidized by private insurers. A case that pays me $500 from private insurance pays around $125 from Medicare. With more onerous documentation requirements. If all cases paid anesthesiologists Medicare rates there would be no anesthesiologists. Not instantaneously. But soon.
You think the government in its plan is expecting to triple what it pays now? To get to 60% of insurance? Nope. They are probably expecting to pay LESS. The big lie in 'Medicare for all' is their cost projections.

But as far as emergency care, today you are correct. But Medicare for all would lead to a massive shortage of practicing doctors. It's a pipe dream.

So that's interesting and it brings up a thought I had.


Doctors are fleeing Canada because they can be paid more in the United States.

Medicare for all in the United States.

Lower doctor pay.

What country are they going to flee to?

Quote: Dalex64

So that's interesting and it brings up a thought I had.


Doctors are fleeing Canada because they can be paid more in the United States.

Medicare for all in the United States.

Lower doctor pay.

What country are they going to flee to?

No country. But there is no surplus of practicing doctors now. Cut pay significantly and those (like me!) that are near the end of their careers retire early. Those considering medicine as a career don't. A small percentage already practicing find some other career. Add it all up and quality goes down.