Do these doctors understand that they will be taking a significant pay cut?
Medicare would need many of those people administering insurance claims since fraud is already a 60 billion dollar problem and would likely skyrocket under medicare for all.
Based on…? Also, can anyone find comparable figures for fraud in the US and UK?
But would they?
I’m surprised it’s that low. Wikipedia says it’s $80B.
Surely that depends upon the controls put in place? Interestingly, the links I’ve checked indicate that the fraud in the US is on the part of the insurers, not the insured, and that should vanish under UHC. Fraud by patients doesn’t seem to be addressed.
They would, in Canada doctors are paid 33% to 50% less than what American doctors are depending on specialty.
Medicare fraud is done by clinics and doctors, sometime with patient help and sometimes without. The way medicare is set up all claims have to be paid and no payments can be withheld because of suspected fraud.
From the paper you linked to in the OP -
Regards,
Shodan
So you are assuming that people in the medical profession are, in general, completely in the dark about the insurance plan that covers every senior citizen in the country?
Give me a break.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, that’s about payments to HC providers, not staff. But I should have been more specific: I was thinking of net income, not gross income.
Educate me here: don’t Canadian doctors, like those in the UK, have fewer personal costs?
No what I assume is that one of the reasons doctors may be supportive of this is that they believe that the planned cuts to their reimbursements won’t happen. The last time Congress tried to cut doctor pay was in 1997. They passed a law limiting the growth of spending on doctors in Medicare. After that every year for 17 years they passed a law delaying the implementation of that part of the law and then finally repealed the law in 2015. This was not a law that slashed their payments as the proposed medicare for all law would, it was just supposed to limit growth to 2-3% a year. Given this history it is crazy to think that a 40% cut is feasible.
The study the OP mentions took this into account and did the calculations and found that not including the reimbursement cuts would mean an extra 6 trillion dollars during the time frame, totally wiping out any cost savings.
Oh… I don’t know how you got to that from your last comment, but I’m following you. But it seems like a pretty big assumption, n’est pas?
So everyone gets coverage, but the total cost is the same as we’re paying? That sounds like a GREAT deal.
No, the extra 6 trillion represents a 2.5 trillion increase in costs over the current system.
Ah. Better to save some money and let poor people die. It’s just the smart financial move.
For 3.2T a year we could fly sick people to Cuba to treat them for a lot less