Uhc Rx Form: Fill & Download for Free

We can, but both insurance and private hospitals for profit do not want it as they can’t dictate costs and profit hugely doing so and come after you to get their loot in court.Universal health care via population crowd funding would be likely better care and far cheaper per capital/per person cost… great wellness of the population and thus productivity.Transferring to such would be good/great, produce jobs and generate income buy those building out the needed care facilities would have to be built out and brought on line throughout the States working with each States needs to service their population and physician/nursing/tech staff, equipment needs infrastructure worked out to be efficient to access and need of all a nations citizens.The old insurance company paper work would be far gone and what you pay in premiums that allow them to profit as do private hospitals would gone to a large degree of gouging and the taking one to court would be gone if you can’t pay a hefty medical bill be gone…. or denied coverage before or otherwise limit you to what you can afford they are not at risk of loss.Then the bill for services paid care takers and all the hospital staff and material and drugs RX maintain needs would come out of the Universal fund paid directly by a governing trustee either at the Federal or within a given State authority. Such must less taxes paid will replace the high level premiums and deductibles and RX costs. WHY? Because the U.S. will be negotiating cost with hospitals and RX firms directly NOT FOR PROFIT gains alone at the expense of its citizens health care needs.Hospitals bill you retail you owe, insurance companies negotiate down what the pay out to the hospital and collect the retail from you and pocket the different they didn’t pay to the hospital or RX companies… PLUS they have your premium and processing fees, too. ASSUMING IN THE FIRST PLACE you could afford medical insurance or you be rejected coverage if deemed a high risk by job, genetics, male or female care need norms prejudice, the community you live in and what ever they use to profile one to minimize the outlay for care you need hurts them.Universal Health Care would likely put more money in the pockets of business employers than into insurance companies, that use your money not just to pay medical bills, but buy wholly unrelated assets, pay huge CEO salaries and pump up stock values - that do little to help you get health care unless you have stock and sell it to pay medical cost before you might and still have to go bankrupt.That can’t happen with Universal Health Care… nor is one’s share paid in into the care fund the same that one is not able to sustain a livable wage and some will pay more AS THEY DO NOW for all tax needs for highways, police and so on as per income. Yea, the CEO of the insurance company and Private Hospital owners (not doctors) want you to pay them whether or not you can afford it… you’re expendable… it’s a form of extortion. Universal Health Care eliminates extortion. But, you can still have private health insurance if you desire it but still must pay into the UHC fund. Just like if you didn’t vote for an elected politician that won, you have to pay their salary and expense budgets like it or not.The bottom line is greed versus your health comes second. Tell that to your kids and suffering spouse and you’re working two jobs just to make ends of cost of living meet. UHC will cost you less - period! More in your pocket than subsidizing the financial and wellness wealth gain at your expense of others.Those in general insurance office administration may well just slip right into the UHC system that will pay their salaries to administrating it.

Will Bernie Sanders “Medicare for all” plan work?Who cares? No plan is really in the process of being made into lawWhat we should be looking at is they do not want it for themselvesIn fact Medicare does not not appeal to Bernie or Ms WarrenBoth are eligible, and have been for a decade.Neither took it.Neither did they put the family members on itNeither did Uncle JoeAside form all the other arguments - and there are many, that they choose not to take it for themselves and the “loved ones” is the best single argument against it.What do they know we the public are not being told?Actions always speak loader than words.-but to the questionNot likely, unless 7 major issues with Medicare are fixed first, and not unless challenges in the way of implementation are fixed firstAs I replied inAs a U.S. taxpayer do you support Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan? Why or why not?Nope - it is not likely to come out as a working solution, and there are 7 points that need to be fixed before the public will accept it.Unfortunately, it also is going to run into cost problems - the same cost problems that had Congress eliminated Medicare gap coverage Plan F, which will result inRationing, like other UHC nations doWalking it back once in place, like is being done in some nations-For details - here is part of the most commonly cited study“National health expenditures (NHE) are currently projected to be $4.562 trillion in 2022.5 Subtracting the $10 billion decrease in personal health spending, as calculated in the previous paragraph, and crediting the plan with $83 billion in administrative cost savings results in an NHE projection under M4A of $4.469 trillion. Of this, $4.244 trillion in costs would be borne by the federal government. Compared with the current projection of $1.709 trillion of federal healthcare subsidy costs, this would be a net increase of $2.535 trillion in annual costs, or roughly 10.7 percent of GDP.”“Large though these dollar figures are, they are broadly consistent with those estimated by other experts in advance of the M4A bill’s introduction in September 2017.6 In 2016, an Urban Institute (UI) team projected that Senator Sanders’s proposal as described during his presidential campaign would add $32 trillion to federal spending in the years spanning 2017 through 2026, a projection that included a $2.94 trillion federal cost estimate of the plan’s provisions for covering long-term supports and services (LTSS). Also in 2016, the Center for Health and Economy (CHE) projected that from 2017 through 2026, the Sanders proposal would increase federal budget deficits by $27.3 trillion. The CHE score did not include an estimate of increased LTSS costs. Emory University professor Kenneth Thorpe estimated the federal financing required for the proposal at $24.7 trillion from 2017 through 2026, also not including LTSS. When considering the same years and the same benefit provisions, these other independent estimates are quite close to those presented in this paper.” https://www.mercatus.org/system/...And that is best case - with perfect savings.It would save 2 trillion over 10 years from projected costs.Other - as cited “more realistic cost estimates” - would be far more spending-but that is only 1 / 4 the storyThat was a best case, super savingsIt would mean doctors would accept a 10% loss on average, per patientGoogle “doc fix’ and see how well those cuts worked in the pastThere also was no estimate to completely rebuild all regulations, rules and systems. ACA spent Trillions just modifying and expanding the existing system.But wait - there is more…I did this in a reply for someone else - who was so completely sold on the issue by meme’sThis is the stuff no one is talking about - the wicked twin personality of MedicareTake a really good look - and then come back and say it is “All Good”-Here are some points you may want to factor inAnd nothing of what I say is intended as a personal attack, or out of disrespect.I am merely pointing out what is obvious to anyone who has had dealings with both sectors.I suspect we can agree that we do not want a system that does the following to U S patientsPostcode lottery' revealed in NHS carePostcode lotteryPostcode Lotteries in Public Health - The NHS Health Checks Programme in North West LondonConsider:UHC is almost in place now in the U S - since all insurers must cover the same things, and all insurers must follow state and federal coverage laws.It fell down because Congress never put in the level of Mandate like used in Medicare Parts B and DIt fell down because we have a massive influx of people who are not in traditional housing, And we have a massive homeless population, which can not be reached and issued coverage by traditional meansMedicare for All means scrapping something 80% Plus like-And consider -there are only about 160 million actual workers/earners in the U S - and so it would have to be paid for by those workers/earners who actually make enough to be taxed, or buy enough to allow businesses to pass the taxes on to them in purchased prices of goods and services. Anyone with any business sense knows companies do not actually pay the taxes - consumers do.If that aspect is too complicated - just drop this conversation. Again - no insult intended - just that I am not going back to basic economics on a health care conversation-So that you can see a snap shot of what happens in the U S - I will pick on JUST the U S government medical care coverage - and pick on just the nationwide U S system that is supposed to be identical and efficient nation wide,It is supposed to be the great hope for streamlined claims processing, no denials, efficiency, low administration costs, lower labor costs.-Point 1A better claims processing system - not with MedicareSo that you have a better grasp - consider that Medicare todaydoes not process claims for almost 20 million on employer retirement insurancedoes not process claims for almost 20 million on Medicare Advantage insurancedoes not process claims for almost 20 million on original Medicare for outpatient Rx claims (Part D)Now Google “Medicare denies more claims than private insurance ” - and look at the denial rate for Medicare compared to private insuranceSo the denial rate will at best stay static, but is likely to go up, not down - That is already proven see charts belowMedicare more likely to deny claims than commercial health insurersAppeals of Denied Medicare Claims Mean High Costs for Hospitals, Low Risk for RACs-Point 2streamlined system in place is falseMedicare current has has no ability to processmental health issues, including natal, post natal, postpartum metal health, PTSD, or similar - they are all VA or Medicaid processed, if treated at alloutpatient drug orders - they are all claims done by private insurancechildren’s health, or birth and post birth care - they are all private or Medicaid processed claimsand the claims process is so bad, they deny more claims than a combination of private insurersSo the system will need to be built before Medicare-Point 3efficiency is falseAnyone who has gone to a Social Security office, a DMV, or a VA benefits review already knows that ASS U ME ption of efficiency is false.That is why people hire attorneys to get disability benefitsThat is why people hire attorneys to get VA benefitsThat is why the VA has 4 administration people for each person who touches a patientThat is why the VA is outsourcing medical care to private hospitalsThat is why IHS is the WORST medical coverage to haveThat is why Medicare and Medicaid outsource so much to private insurersThat is why the Federal and State governments hired private insurers to run the exchange IT services-Point 4savings is also falseWe already know, from the Oregon study, documented by NEJoM, that claims will increase as more are insured, and disproportionately more soMore claims = more claims to process = more processing costsWe already know that the claims rate will further increase when there is no more copay or deductible - that was proven 5 years ago, and is why Medicare Plan F was terminated for new enrollment by Congress several years agoMore claims = more claims to process = more processing costs-Point 5savings in labor costs is also falseEven if the claims rate remain static - and they just shift to Medicare - there will be a massive labor cost increase just due to labor costsgovernment workers are paid on average of 30 - 57% more than private sectorgovernment workers get more taxpayer paid benefits than private workers get in private benefitsgovernment workers qualify to retire out at pension after 25 years, which private workers can not. In fact, elderly workers can retire out after 5 years of service. Eligibility-Point 6savings due to lower overhead is also falseKeep in mind that Medicare outsources much of it’s coverage to other insurersandmedicare does per claim cost, not per patient cost like every other insurer is mandated to doSo under a UHC or single payer - there would need to be a uniform standard for how things are measured and monitoredSo to formulate your great system - please review this information as wellAdministrative costs for private insurance versus MedicareMedicare for All: Administrative Costs Are Much Higher than You Think | Gary GallesIs Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?https://www.washingtonpost.com/n...Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private InsuranceThe Myth Of Medicare Cost SavingsBarbara Boxer says Medicare overhead is far lower than private insurers' overheadBusting the Adminstrative Cost Benefit Myth | RealClearPoliticsMedicare-For-All Would Increase, Not Save, Administrative Costs-point 7And when you are ready to make the claim of cost savings “because other nations do”Run the numbers for drug addiction rates by nationRun the numbers on obesity by nationRun the numbers on lifestyle induced illnessRun the numbers on chronic illnesses like the asbestos induced that the U S workers incurred saving the world’s azz in WWIICheck the old - because it is old - data on births - and ask yourself why many nations never have low birth weight babies - the dirty truth is because they do not count them as births - again - that was discovered ages ago.Here is a news flashNO ONE can not treat 2x as many sick people for the same priceNO ONE can tax medical services and expect to have a lower costNO ONE can tax medication and expect to have a lower cost

How will large health insurance companies stay in business with a Medicare for all system?They are not health insurance companiesThey are Insurance CompaniesThey do so many things, and offer so many services, they will be fineIn fact, as the government struggles with the costs of the system - they will be happy to offer a parallel service once the reality of the program sinks in.And Medicare for All has not been designed yetBut while you are looking for it’s final form, consider the following details-Consider -UHC is almost in place now in the U S - since all insurers must cover the same things, and all insurers must follow state and federal coverage laws.It fell down because Congress never put in the level of Mandate like used in Medicare Parts B and DIt fell down because we have a massive influx of people who are not in traditional housing, And we have a massive homeless population, which can not be reached and issued coverage by traditional meansNow in a M4A - everyone who is happy with what they have - loses it-And consider who and how it will be paid for -there are only about 160 million actual workers/earners in the U S - and so it would have to be paid for by those workers/earners who actually make enough to be taxed, or buy enough to allow businesses to pass the taxes on to them in purchased prices of goods and services. Anyone with any business sense knows companies do not actually pay the taxes - consumers do.If that aspect is too complicated - just drop this conversation. Again - no insult intended - just that I am not going back to basic economics on a health care conversation-So that you can see a snap shot of what happens in the U S - I will pick on JUST U S government medical care coverage - and pick on just the nationwide U S system that is supposed to be identical and efficient nation wide,It is supposed to be the great hope for streamlined claims processing, no denials, efficiency, low administration costs, lower labor costs.-Point 1A better claims processing system - not with MedicareSo that you have a better grasp - consider that Medicare todaydoes not process claims for almost 20 million on employer retirement insurancedoes not process claims for almost 20 million on Medicare Advantage insurancedoes not process claims for almost 20 million on original Medicare for outpatient Rx claims (Part D)Now Google “Medicare denies more claims than private insurance ” - and look at the denial rate for Medicare compared to private insuranceSo the denial rate will at best stay static, but is likely to go up, not down - That is already proven see charts belowMedicare more likely to deny claims than commercial health insurersAppeals of Denied Medicare Claims Mean High Costs for Hospitals, Low Risk for RACs-Point 2streamlined system in place is falseMedicare current has has no ability to processmental health issues, including natal, post natal, postpartum metal health, PTSD, or similar - they are all VA or Medicaid processed, if treated at alloutpatient drug orders - they are all claims done by private insurancechildren’s health, or birth and post birth care - they are all private or Medicaid processed claimsand the claims process is so bad, they deny more claims than a combination of private insurersSo the system will need to be built before Medicare-Point 3efficiency is falseAnyone who has gone to a Social Security office, a DMV, or a VA benefits review already knows that ASS U ME ption of efficiency is false.That is why people hire attorneys to get disability benefitsThat is why people hire attorneys to get VA benefitsThat is why the VA has 4 administration people for each person who touches a patientThat is why the VA is outsourcing medical care to private hospitalsThat is why IHS is the WORST medical coverage to haveThat is why Medicare and Medicaid outsource so much to private insurersThat is why the Federal and State governments hired private insurers to run the exchange IT services-Point 4savings is also falseWe already know, from the Oregon study, documented by NEJoM, that claims will increase as more are insured, and disproportionately more soMore claims = more claims to process = more processing costsWe already know that the claims rate will further increase when there is no more copay or deductible - that was proven 5 years ago, and is why Medicare Plan F was terminated for new enrollment by Congress several years agoMore claims = more claims to process = more processing costs-Point 5savings in labor costs is also falseEven if the claims rate remain static - and they just shift to Medicare - there will be a massive labor cost increase just due to labor costsgovernment workers are paid on average of 30 - 57% more than private sectorgovernment workers get more taxpayer paid benefits than private workers get in private benefitsgovernment workers qualify to retire out at pension after 25 years, which private workers can not. In fact, elderly workers can retire out after 5 years of service. Eligibility-Point 6savings due to lower overhead is also falseKeep in mind that Medicare outsources much of it’s coverage to other insurersandmedicare does per claim cost, not per patient cost like every other insurer is mandated to doSo under a UHC or single payer - there would need to be a uniform standard for how things are measured and monitoredSo to formulate your great system - please review this information as wellAdministrative costs for private insurance versus MedicareMedicare for All: Administrative Costs Are Much Higher than You Think | Gary GallesIs Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?https://www.washingtonpost.com/n...Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private InsuranceThe Myth Of Medicare Cost SavingsBarbara Boxer says Medicare overhead is far lower than private insurers' overheadBusting the Adminstrative Cost Benefit Myth | RealClearPoliticsMedicare-For-All Would Increase, Not Save, Administrative Costs-point 7And when you are ready to make the claim of cost savings “because other nations do”Run the numbers for drug addiction rates by nationRun the numbers on obesity by nationRun the numbers on lifestyle induced illnessRun the numbers on chronic illnesses like the asbestos induced that the U S workers incurred saving the world’s azz in WWIICheck the old - because it is old - data on births - and ask yourself why many nations never have low birth weight babies - the dirty truth is because they do not count them as births - again - that was discovered ages ago.Here is a news flashNO ONE can not treat 2x as many sick people for the same priceNO ONE can tax medical services and expect to have a lower costNO ONE can tax medication and expect to have a lower cost