It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Case for Medicare for All Citizens ?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
With all the hoopla about how Trump and Congress will deal with ObamaCare, maybe some discussion about Medicare for all Citizens is in order.

Many people have advocated for this through the years.

Currently, payroll tax is at 1.45% for you, and your employer pays 1.45% (self-employed pays 2.90%).

Some higher income is taxed an additional .9% I think.

So how much would payroll tax need to be for all Citizens covered ?

Keep in mind too that Medicare recipients pay extra for Part B, and for supplemental policies.

Maybe state Medicaid could be eliminated ?

How would this affect insurance companies and employees (and people working in agencies) ?

Will those people be unemployed or would they become the administrator contractors ?

Lots of questions.

Would 9% x 9% cover it ? And where would an earnings cut-off be ?

I have no idea what will work.







edit on Jan-17-2017 by xuenchen because: lotsofquestions




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
They won't give healthcare to everyone because they don't want everyone healthy. They don't want to house the homeless or feed the poor. It creates a bigger population they can't control. The population would grow so big the earth would not be able to support the population.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Who is "they"? Why aren't "they" in Canada, where they have universal health care?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't want medicare. Even when I turn 65, I still won't want it. Why can't they just deregulate the healthcare system and let competition bring prices down? Why is that such a difficult concept for people to absorb?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't want medicare. Even when I turn 65, I still won't want it. Why can't they just deregulate the healthcare system and let competition bring prices down? Why is that such a difficult concept for people to absorb?


I agree a lot of the problems have been caused by micro-managing laws and regulations.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Why not have our taxes pay for healthcare? I'd be more than willing to pay a little extra in taxes if that meant everyone got healthcare when they needed it without having a lifetime debt attached to it.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Canadian here. Health care in Canada sucks big time. You have to wait hours just to see a nurse.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Ballooning debt is a notable feature of government programs. They cannot be sustained indefinitely, if the entire population is dependent on those programs, the civilization as a whole collapses in time.
edit on 17-1-2017 by GodEmperor because: be nice



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Precisely what happened to the USSR.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Because that would eliminate competition and the cost of healthcare would continue to rise as it is today. On top of that, quality of care would diminish and treatment options would be limited. Oh yeah, thats what we have today! Why? Because the government chokes it out with regulation.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ultimatewarrior4
a reply to: GodEmperor

Precisely what happened to the USSR.


Haha! Well thanks to Obama, we're all Comrades now.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

(Facepalm) A deregulated healthcare system would be a lawless healthcare system. LITERALLY. How can anyone think a lawless healthcare system would be good? Complete deregulation is literally the same thing as lawlessness.

If you think medical fraud and medical malpractice are bad now, just imagine if health insurance companies, doctors, and medical facilities have no rules or legal penalties for their actions.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I agree completely...

It's not acceptable to charge $20 for an aspirin, then another $15 to administer it. Until, competition is within the system we will have to bring our own aspirin to the hospital with us to keep costs down.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
There should not be universal healthcare, just like there should not be free college.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you for posting the topic!

There is an interesting site that has a "purple plan" - i.e. a blend of left and right ideas. It is a Medicare for All type idea that leans heavily, in my opinion, on the GOP side of things. Moreso than I'm comfortable with, really, but it's interesting nonetheless.

It has vouchers, which can be a problem if they are underfunded (and Congress likes to underfund things it doesn't like). It has goals that people may debate. So to be clear - I'm not endorsing this plan (but many have). I am providing it as food for discussion.

I think it makes an attempt to combine Medicaid, Medicare and the ACA into one thing. This makes me nervous, because of the Medicaid for Disibility provisions that are specific to the autism community, for example, are more to do with life-long housing, services and health care. You can't take away the three-fold nature of the program for the severely disabled or you will financially destroy families...or just destroy them in general. So there's that. It has NOTHING specific for this population, which is a definite and rather massive oversight.

It is a starting point, however, and it might be workable if the disabled aren't given the shaft, and the "cost capping" doesn't end up making it ridiculously expensive for people. The other side of it is it keeps the insurance companies in the drivers seat. Why can't we have them only for supplemental plans?? I would prefer that.

link - The Purple Health Plan



Principles of Healthcare Reform
1. All Americans need a basic health plan and should be free to purchase supplemental health insurance coverage.

2. Healthcare should be privately provided with people free to choose their doctors and hospitals.

3. All who can pay for their health plans should do so through a combination of existing tax payments and health plan co-payments.

4. The government's projected healthcare costs must be strictly capped and affordable on a long-term basis.

5. Health plans should be affordable regardless of one's pre-existing health conditions or risk.

6. The system must provide strong incentives to prevent overuse of healthcare services and discourage bad healthcare behavior.

7. Medical malpractice reform is needed to keep providers from engaging in unaffordable defensive medicine.


The Purple Health Plan

1. All Americans receive a voucher each year to purchase a standard plan from the private-plan provider of their choice.

2. Vouchers are individually risk-adjusted; those with higher expected healthcare costs, based on documented medical conditions, receive larger vouchers.

3. Participating insurance companies providing standard plans cannot deny coverage.

4. Each year a panel of doctors sets the coverages of the standard plan subject to a strict budget, namely that the total cost to the government of the vouchers cannot exceed 10 percent of GDP.

5. Insurance companies providing standard plans contract with private providers to cover their plan participants.
Americans choose doctors and hospitals included in the standard plan they choose.


6. Plan providers compete and provide incentives to improve participants' health and limit bad health practices.
Plan providers offer supplemental plans to their participants and cannot deny supplemental insurance coverage to their participants.

7. The government (federal and state) ends the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance premiums.
Like all other Americans, Medicare, Medicaid, and health exchange participants are covered by the Purple Health Plan subject to appropriate transition provisions.

8. The roughly 10 percent of GDP now spent or allocated by federal and state government on these and related programs, as well as on the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance premiums, is reallocated to help finance the vouchers.


Republicans like voucher programs. Democrats like coverage for everyone. Everyone likes "fairness" for folks who have greater needs, and "affordability" is obviously a need.



What I DO like is the fact that people on both sides are willing to talk about it. Well, some anyway. It is important.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

There are areas in the health industry that have been relatively left to the free market.

The prices have decreased considerably in those fields: lasik, lypo, and plastic surgery.

The rest of health industry, that is under heavy government control, see prices spiraling out of control.

Empirical evidence Trumps opinions every time!
edit on 17-1-2017 by GodEmperor because: sp



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
From what I understand of Medicare/medicaid and Doctors, clinics and hospitals, is that Medicare/Medicaid won't always pay the bills or pay enough to offices compared to competition with insurance-source on it. That overall gives the prospective patients to a clinics less options in the market.

Also, that for example, if a Dr. owes college debt, they cannot accept those patients- see here.

Less than half of Drs. accept government insurance and it may be growing due to the looming student debt bubble and more as shared in the sources. So, not only do many places not trust that health insurance, many cannot even use it. Those issues have to dealt with, otherwise there may be a positive to it.

edit on 17-1-2017 by dreamingawake because: spell check issues.

edit on 17-1-2017 by dreamingawake because: -



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It wouldn't be that bad. More laws do not make us safer. I should be able to choose which doctor I want based on itemized price of services and treatment. The way things are today. Most doctors dont even tell patients how much visits and procedures will cost, because they usually overcharge the insurance companies. If we allow the system to operate with competition, prices will drop drastically.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I support the purple reform!!!

But I would like to see some sort of financial obligation differences between those that choose to drink water daily instead of supersized sodas.

Why isn't there added benefits to people who spend a fair chunk of their own finances to eat without manipulated foods... whether it be gene editing or processing. Think about that... things are so synthetically manipulated these days, that it costs at least 20% more to eat what is basic and natural???

Don't even get me started on anti-depressant abuse within the US...
edit on 17-1-2017 by ttobban because: added comments...



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

That is very interesting! Is there anything in it that makes you uncomfortable or worried? Is there anything you would add to it or take away from it?

Are you concerned it would become too much of a cost burden over time? (Just trying to think GOP here - lol!)

Thanks!!!


- AB



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join