> First issue - many medical practices are
> "non-participating providers". The reason is that
> the Medicare payments do not cover the cost of
> services - and by a significant amount. The
> result is they will accept a Medicare patient, but
> the patient has to pay the costs up front out of
> pocket to get treatment. Then the patient has to
> submit to Medicare for reimbursement.
> Second issue - a major factor driving up the costs
> of medical treatment in the USA is the regulatory
> overhead. A medical practice has to hire multiple
> people just to fill in the forms. If the
> regulatory burden was removed, Medicare could be
> viable. But there is zero chance of that
> So no - putting everyone on Medicare would just
> mean everyone would be paying large out of their
> own pockets while waiting for eventual
> reimbursement from Medicare - which would only
> cover part of their costs.
> Finally, requiring medical practices to accept
> Medicare directly would simply mean the medical
> practices would simply drop back to a 1960's level
> of care - otherwise they would operate at a loss
> and go out of business.
> Fix issue #2 and the problem would be resolved -
> and that is not going to happen.
OK, understood.(I think)
it sounds like you have a half way house that stitches up those that can pay, who lose most of the payment money.
What about those that can't pay, are they rejected?
Secondly how can regulations be so burdensome give the ultra high standards you currently maintain privately?
How does this happen.
Thirdly, what happens to a retired 70 year old in good health if he wants to buy health insurance? what's the annual maintenance charge on this? We all retire and come out of schemes.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04-Dec-18 00:18 by muppedo.