The Case for Medicare for All Citizens ?

It's like this: the medicare tax is a bit too low to support the unbridled capitalism of the massive healthcare industry.
Don't forget, people on Medicare have to pay premuims to Uncle Sam in addition to their "Supplement", "Advantage" or "Comprehensive" plans paid to insurers.

Even though a few years back the "cap" was lifted off Medicare (or for most wage earners anyway), there's still not enough money to support the system of corporate profits necessary to support the "economy".

Social Security (FICA) has a maximum effective tax amount, basically a wager earner "pays out" at around $120,000 salary.
So if you're a CEO pulling down $1.5million, you'll pay FICA tax in January, and you're done for the rest of the year.
In my view, this needs to be addressed, cap lifted, and let the tax money flow into the "loaned out" funds we're desperately "missing".

ganjoa

a reply to: ttobban

Do hospitals even allow you to bring your own meds?

I went to the ER once because my in-laws harassed me into it. I should have stood my ground. I had a fever peak at 106F, excruciatingly sore throat, and a splitting headache. It was mono, and I knew it by the symptoms. Some how I contracted it from working at a pharmacy.

So I went to the ER. They told me what I already knew, refused to give me anything for the pain, gave me some steroids for my throat (which I could finish due to side effects), and they left me with a $800.00 bill! They just told me to continue alternating with tylenol and motrin for the fever, which I could barely keep under control.

Yep $800.00 to tell me what I already knew after making me wait for 3 hours.

Next time, the only time I will go to the hospital is if I wind up getting hurt after trying to treat myself. Its not worth it. Such poor quality care at such a high cost. What a joke!

a reply to: AboveBoard

There are uncertainties in any system.

Pretty much, it comes down to money and how to keep it afloat... there is not enough money to fund these high technology medical centers since the entire economy is based on debt based financing. So, the only way to fund the changes is to pinch the excess spending, maintaining it to being audited by a panel of doctors like you said... and the fed role stay limited to enforcing regulations and removing big pharmacy influence by not allowing advertising of meds that keep issues at bay and concentrate on meds that heal.

A doctor's first question should be... how much water do you drink. They are doctors of medicine, and sadly only a small percentage of them are trained in health practices... which is insane to me. We currently fund a system of which pill pushers have degrees and they are paid by big pharm. Insurance actually hurts doctor's, but there must be competition for them to navigate their own impact on the health of their patients.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Not sure... I have not been to the hospital in years. I am one to float to a natural healer anyway. But, if I feel the need to break down and go I already have planned to bring my own aspirin as a protest.

I say tell your doctor what's right for you... don't ask them!

Funny story I witnessed. A bike accident on the road in front of the hospital. Ambulance came. A trip inside the hospital was needed. I witnessed an argument... asking for them to just push him through the doors on the gurney to keep the costs down. The fued resulted in an $800 ambulance ride to the hospital... because they were called to the scene they were mandated to follow protocol they said... hahaha.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
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.

Single payer does not eliminate competition.

originally posted by: ganjoa
It's like this: the medicare tax is a bit too low to support the unbridled capitalism of the massive healthcare industry.
Don't forget, people on Medicare have to pay premuims to Uncle Sam in addition to their "Supplement", "Advantage" or "Comprehensive" plans paid to insurers.

Even though a few years back the "cap" was lifted off Medicare (or for most wage earners anyway), there's still not enough money to support the system of corporate profits necessary to support the "economy".

Social Security (FICA) has a maximum effective tax amount, basically a wager earner "pays out" at around $120,000 salary.
So if you're a CEO pulling down $1.5million, you'll pay FICA tax in January, and you're done for the rest of the year.
In my view, this needs to be addressed, cap lifted, and let the tax money flow into the "loaned out" funds we're desperately "missing".

ganjoa

Just to point one thing out, there is no "unbridled capitalism" in the healthcare industry.

What they REALLY have is a completely protected money machine. Protected by the very government that should have dismantled the FDA criminals a long time ago and use the money spent on the agency to do clinical trials on things that work without the very people who patent the drugs being on the same panel that approves them. That's not capitalism. No free market there.

In the real world, a cancer patient should have their health care take care of their Gerson Therapy. No money to be made with a natural cure though... can't patent it.

Actual capitalism would have lowered health care costs and would have a better success rate.

Instead of us now having Doctors as the third leading cause of death in the US.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Looks like a plan.

But They don't get into details about the costs like payroll tax, etc.

They should come up with a cost analysis.

I wonder if Trump and Congress are seeing this.

a reply to: GodEmperor

So being in debt for life because you have to pay off that hospital bill is better than universal healthcare how? America is already falling without universal healthcare so I don't see how it could make it any worse than it already is.

originally posted by: ultimatewarrior4
a reply to: windword

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

We have Canadian patients here in America who sold homes to get life-saving surgery/treatment here ASAP, before it was too late. Canada just casually placed them on a waiting list. A MONTHS LONG waiting list, for God's sake!

a reply to: ganjoa

"Unbridled capitalism" in the healthcare industry? You must be hallucinating. The government has its fingers so far up healthcare's ass, its embarrassing. The DEA has prescibers scared to prescribe controlled substances (authoritarianism). The FDA pretty much controls which drugs are allowed on the market and which companies can manufacture them (cronyism). The EPS rains terror upon any hospital or pharmacy that doesn't jump through their hoops of regulation (bureaucracy). And now thanks to government intervention in the third party payor system, insurance companies are cherry picking doctors, therapies, and pharmacies based on costs rather than the patients' needs.

a reply to: Aazadan

That's like saying water isn't wet. If there is only one payer that I am forced to use, then that payer is a monopoly because it has no competitors.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

That's why the universal healthcare law needs to have a ban of price gouging written into it to prevent such things. Price gouging is already happening even with competition in the market so I don't really see how universal healthcare could make it any worse than it already is.

I would much rather pay a little more in taxes than hundreds of dollars for a simple checkup.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It's not about "more laws". Unregulated means no no regulation, aka no laws or oversight. A lawless healthcare system would be worse because there would be no penalties for fraud, malpractice, or any of the other things we've come to expect (like not being turned away from emergency rooms).

I should be able to choose which doctor I want based on itemized price of services and treatment.

According to who? Clearly the healthcare facilities and doctors don't agree, otherwise they'd be doing it voluntarily right now. Unless you can point to me any regulations that forbid them from doing these things right now. In other words, if they refuse to do this now, why would they do it when there are even fewer legal requirements for them to follow?

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.

How would fewer regulations change this? If anything, this could be fixed by new regulations that require the disclosure of the costs beforehand.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side because doctors & healthcare providers in other areas do that same stuff! It seems like you think the health insurance companies and doctors in some part of the country are doing things exactly the way you want them to, but regulations are stopping them from opening shop in your State.

If so, can you give some details of which ones you'd like to be able to open business in your State that aren't already there? Because I'm thinking that the companies from one State (which follow the same corrupt practices) will simply open up shop in a new State (while still following the same corrupt practices). Without a requirement to disclose prices, they simply won't do it because it would affect their bottom line.

Time to close our 700+ foreign military bases that did absolutely nothing to protect us on 9/11.

I'd rather spend the money on healthcare security at home.

MEDICARE-FOR-ALL would be approx. $480 a month for each person who wants to enroll in it. (This was calculated back in 2009, when Progressive Democrats were pushing for it..instead of ObamaCare.) It would be more now.

The big push-back came from the medical industry, who didn't want to take the 25%-40% PAY CUT that accompanies the treatment of each patient who's on a government program.

Congress and Obama gave in to that tremendous pressure/push-back, and kept private health insurance companies in the loop.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You know you live in a sick society when people are more willing to pay for death and destruction than healthcare for their neighbors.

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.


Lots of questions.

I went on medicare 6 years ago and I currently pay 108 per month out of social security. It is exactly what I would pay without the supplement. Last I looked my deductible was about 2500.

When I spoke to the person for United Healthcare (now AARP) he told me the gov paid between 600 and 800 per month per patient. Seems like a lot to me as over 6 years I have maybe used 1000.

So yes a tax would have to go up but by how much...who knows.

Remember...or if you do know...our government invests in the stock market and hope to cover it with the profits.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

How exactly does competition bring down an inelastic product? What hospital is going to start to charge less? Is the AMA going to allow more surgeons, more nero's, more general practs?

I am really asking how does this happen?

Donald Trump PROMISED to stop sending billions of our taxpayer dollars to countries who hate our guts every day of the month, except pay day. I hope that's one campaign promise that's not forgotten.

That alone will go a LONG WAYS towards providing EVERY AMERICAN with top quality care!

Too many people living waaaay too long.

Healthcare for nobody, especially those over 50, I say.

Retirement homes should be turned into fertilizer mills.