The Case for Medicare for All Citizens ?

a reply to: carewemust

Cut our military spending in half and we still have the strongest military in the world by far. Use that money we just cut on military spending and put it into healthcare and we'll be good.

Unless of course people are more worried about blowing things up than making sure people are healthy. It seems like that is the case unfortunately.

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
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.

I think about that every time I see a B-2 Bomber.

From: www.aviationcv.com...

"The most expensive military aircraft is B-2 Spirit bomber, which costs 2.2 billion dollars."

AMAZING. Just one plane is twice the worth of Donald Trump.

65 and over?

Glue Factory.

a reply to: carewemust

What's even more amazing is that that bomber is worth more than a good portion of the population, more important than millions of people's health and livelihoods. We live in a profoundly sick society.

a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. Do you realize you are essentially suggesting a single-payer health care system?

I'm 100% behind that if that tells you anything about how much your conservative peers will hate it.

I think ten percent x2 would fund a medicare for everyone program There would still need to be a deductible and copay and of course a part D and drug version would be optional through private insurance companies. Like the supplements to medicare the insurance companies could offer even better coverage that could be paid by employers or bought by oneself.

Now it might sound quite steep but think about this, my granddaughter just got car insurance and the car insurance medical part was over six hundred bucks for six months. Our homeowners insurance also has medical coverage. My business insurance had medical coverage and workmans comp also contained medical coverage. We technically could be taxed a total of twenty five percent overall and still be ahead of the game.

You have to consider everything when you look at cost, not just direct healthcare costs.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Providers don't disclose prices because they can overcharge third party payer. A patient has to choose a plan that is offered from with in their state, so competition is already limited.

www.ncsl.org...

If you allow more competition between insurance companies, then pay outs will be more selective. But this still isn't a solution.

I personally think insurance is a scam and should illegal. That way providers wouldn't have third parties to overcharge and would have to drop and disclose prices to stay in business.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. Do you realize you are essentially suggesting a single-payer health care system?

I'm 100% behind that if that tells you anything about how much your conservative peers will hate it.

Not necessarily suggesting anything.

But it's time to look at it for any good or bad.

I'm seeing lots of scattered ideas.

It's possible there is no workable solution.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. Do you realize you are essentially suggesting a single-payer health care system?

I'm 100% behind that if that tells you anything about how much your conservative peers will hate it.

Not necessarily suggesting anything.

But it's time to look at it for any good or bad.

I'm seeing lots of scattered ideas.

It's possible there is no workable solution.

Nope, there totally is. And it's pretty close to what you have suggested, as long as costs can be lowered by a nationalized competitor.

a reply to: seasonal

I would say that third party payers need to be eliminated altogether so that providers can't overcharge so exorbitantly. Then providers would be compelled to disclose prices so that patients can make informed decisions.

I don't think the AMA should have the right to decide how many providers can practice in any particular field at any particular time. If that is the case, then that is a problem that needed to be fixed.

Once hospitals start losing patients because there are no more third parties to dish out money for their unaffordable services, you better believe they're going to start dropping prices fast.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why should the cost of my health insurance be based on my income? And since I'm self-employed, do I get to pay the 9% twice for a total of 18% of my income, plus the 1.45 x 2, plus the FICA x 2, plus regular income tax rates for federal, state, and local? (rubs forehead).

I don't pay car insurance or home owners insurance based on my income.

I don't pay for electric based on my income.

I don't pay for bottled water based on my income.

My health insurance premium should be based on age, weight, and personal health-related choices like whether or not I drink, do drugs, smoke, or ignore dental hygiene---all risk factors.

Give me back my 2012 rates, adjusted according to the CPI index, and tag on another $50/mo. to go into a catastrophic fund to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions or inability to afford insurance. As it now stands, in 2012 two people in my home were covered, now none is covered. I just cannot afford $12,756 for health insurance for myself, plus pay the other employee+employer taxes, and still have a home.

The only people who benefited from this fiasco are the health care providers who jacked up the cost of services because of the cash cow called the Affordable Care Act, and the government who shifted the burden onto small business owners, and onto middle income/middle aged wage earners who don't want to be paying for their 25 year old's health insurance because we'd rather be saving for retirement and paying off ParentPlus college loans, while seeing our children step into society with decent paying jobs that sustain an entry-level standard of living.

I've thrown almost $20,000 into this mess and all I got out of it was a free annual physical each of the past five years. Shameful.

No one should surrender to this malarky that the federal government knows best. The federal government does not know best and is ill equipped to design such a plan. Just look at VA care, and the waste/fraud that exists in Medicare, and the federally managed disability program. We lie down and allow these bozos to screw up things over and over.

Repeal the Affordable Care Act. Stop sending billions and billions and billions overseas, and cut the girth of federal government workforce and programs by 10%. There, solved. Now the federal government can subsidize people with pre-existing conditions and those in poverty. Everyone else can head to the private market and get back to 2012 rates.

Oh, and all providers should be required to publish prices for each procedure on a price board with the same price for everyone, regardless of insurance carrier. No more U&C for insurance A, U&C plus 3% for insurance B, and a higher price for the cash customer.

Thanks for the rant.

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
a reply to: carewemust

What's even more amazing is that that bomber is worth more than a good portion of the population, more important than millions of people's health and livelihoods. We live in a profoundly sick society.

It's also SICK that treating sickness costs so much. ONE MAN in Iowa used $17 million dollars of medical care in 2016. That was actually the lower "negotiated" rate that Blue Cross paid the doctors/hospitals responsible for his treatment.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. Do you realize you are essentially suggesting a single-payer health care system?

I'm 100% behind that if that tells you anything about how much your conservative peers will hate it.

Not necessarily suggesting anything.

But it's time to look at it for any good or bad.

I'm seeing lots of scattered ideas.

It's possible there is no workable solution.

Nope, there totally is. And it's pretty close to what you have suggested, as long as costs can be lowered by a nationalized competitor.

Well maybe if somebody can come up with the real numbers for comparison.

Have you (or anybody) actually seen any real figures ?

I haven't.

a reply to: EightAhoy

Good points there.

a reply to: windword

The eight richest men who own half the world's wealth, well the people they report to.

a reply to: carewemust

Question for you since you are in the business....

If the government takes over, do you know how many people would be displaced (unemployed) ?

Employees of insurance companies and all related agencies.

I think there could be a problem.

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.

Where are you in CDN? What did you stand in line for hours to get treated? Which Hospital?

a reply to: xuenchen

If you go to the website, it is endorsed by a ton of people and was written up in Forbes by one of the architects of the plan.

It is just a framework. I would like to see a cost analysis and have the disability question answered.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Providers don't disclose prices because they can overcharge third party payer.

So how would reducing regulations change this? They clearly won't disclose their prices if they're not required to.

A patient has to choose a plan that is offered from with in their state, so competition is already limited.

True. But once again, this is true for every State. So what guarantee is there that the plans from State A are going to be better than the plans in State B? I'll just get the option to buy the same plans you're complaining about and you'd get the option to buy the plans I'm complaining about. I just don't see the benefit there. Plus, the out of State plans might not have networks in the new States, which would make all medical prices even higher for their customers in those new States.

If you allow more competition between insurance companies, then pay outs will be more selective. But this still isn't a solution.

That's only true if the new plans have enough customers to negotiate lower prices in that State than the existing plans. As an admittedly lame example, let's assume an existing plan in a State has 350,000 customers. They'll provide medical providers w/those 350,000 customers at a reduced price. Then a new out-of-State plan comes along and only gets 30,000 customers. How can it negotiate lower prices with far fewer customers than the already existing plan?

I personally think insurance is a scam and should illegal. That way providers wouldn't have third parties to overcharge and would have to drop and disclose prices to stay in business.

I agree with this. In fact, I'm pro-"Medicare for All". I think there is no more patriotic thing than making sure all of our citizens have high quality healthcare. What good is it to secure a border if we're allowing the people within that border to die from treatable illnesses?

Health care is a business where the investors profit. It's capitalism.

Corporate hospitals, big pharma, Insurance co's that don't pay, AMA that is essentially a Dr. Union.

Trump can't change this system and he doesn't even want to...he's a business man remember; which side do you think he will take? Corporate control is the new fascist oligarchy.

You get what you deserve and if you can't pay to play, you are SOL. Live with it....or die with it.