‘Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study

[Flopper]

Given all the waivers granted to folks who want to avoid ObamaCare (including Congress), it's highly unlikely we could ever achieve Medicare for All.

The outcome will be a two tiered system of special health care for the political elite and their cronies, with chronic shortages and rationing for those of us who pay for the entire system.

No thank you; I'll pass.

Tagging what the administration has done in regard to congress's healthcare coverage as an exemption to the ACA is interesting but hardly accurate. Far from exempting Congress from the ACA requirements, as some have reported, members and congressional staff of over 24,000, are subject to the additional legal requirements that will apply to no other Americans. They must purchase insurance from the exchanges.

The problem is the law does not allow congressman and staff to continue participation in the federal employee group health plan because it can not be offered on the exchange at this time because their employer, the US government has more that 100 employees.

The government is resolving the problem by subsidizing congressmen and staff in the amount of 72% of average cost of their current group plan, Federal Employee Health Insurance Program. The subsidy must be used to purchase health insurance on the exchanges. The subsidy will continue until 2017 when the Federal Employee Health Program can be made available on the exchange or the law amended to allow congress and staff to participate in the federal group health insurance program like other federal employees.

In regard to waivers, Obama has stated more than once that his administration would issue waivers to help employers and insurers meet the requirements of the law.


Implementing Health Reform: A Proposed Rule On Congressional Exchange Participation ? Health Affairs Blog

 

[JoeB131]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given all the waivers granted to folks who want to avoid ObamaCare (including Congress), it's highly unlikely we could ever achieve Medicare for All.

The outcome will be a two tiered system of special health care for the political elite and their cronies, with chronic shortages and rationing for those of us who pay for the entire system.

No thank you; I'll pass.

Tagging what the administration has done in regard to congress's healthcare coverage as an exemption to the ACA is interesting but hardly accurate. Far from exempting Congress from the ACA requirements, as some have reported, members and congressional staff of over 24,000, are subject to the additional legal requirements that will apply to no other Americans. They must purchase insurance from the exchanges.

The problem is the law does not allow congressman and staff to continue participation in the federal employee group health plan because it can not be offered on the exchange at this time because their employer, the US government has more that 100 employees.

The government is resolving the problem by subsidizing congressmen and staff in the amount of 72% of average cost of their current group plan, Federal Employee Health Insurance Program. The subsidy must be used to purchase health insurance on the exchanges. The subsidy will continue until 2017 when the Federal Employee Health Program can be made available on the exchange or the law amended to allow congress and staff to participate in the federal group health insurance program like other federal employees.

In regard to waivers, Obama has stated more than once that his administration would issue waivers to help employers and insurers meet the requirements of the law.


Implementing Health Reform: A Proposed Rule On Congressional Exchange Participation ? Health Affairs Blog

But they don't have to pay for it, we do. The only way you can argue that that doesn't exempt them from Obamacare is if you are a lying fuckwad.

Are you a lying fuckwad?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Why do you lie about it if Obamacare is so great?

 

[S.J.]

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Why do you lie about it if Obamacare is so great?

Because he suffers from "Chris Matthews Syndrome".

 

[Flopper]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

There are very few changes in the ACA that effect employee group health insurance policies that have not already been made. The two major changes, preexisting conditions and lifetime maximums have already been eliminated from most all employee sponsored health plans. The major impact is on individual and family plans purchased on the exchanges. This effects less than 20% of the people.

The 1 yr delay of employer mandate is to allow the IRS to clarify rules concerning part time work and to give employers that are eligible to unitize the exchanges time to evaluate their use for their group health insurance. Basically, this is employers with 50 to 100 employees, about 5% of the employers.

For most group plans, the coverage and premium will be same with or without the mandate because the benefits are the same.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Why do you lie about it if Obamacare is so great?

I don't think ObamaCare is that great.

I think Obamacare is a big,wet sloppy kiss to big insurance.

But it's better than what we were doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Why do you lie about it if Obamacare is so great?

I don't think ObamaCare is that great.

I think Obamacare is a big,wet sloppy kiss to big insurance.

But it's better than what we were doing.

How is more of what we were doing better if what we were doing is so awful? Does it being a big, wet, sloppy kiss to big insurance justify you lying about what Obama did?

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you lie about it if Obamacare is so great?

I don't think ObamaCare is that great.

I think Obamacare is a big,wet sloppy kiss to big insurance.

But it's better than what we were doing.

How is more of what we were doing better if what we were doing is so awful? Does it being a big, wet, sloppy kiss to big insurance justify you lying about what Obama did?

Guy, take your pills, and try to pay attention.

The fact that people who weren't covered are now covered and are not going to be using the Emergency Room as their doctor's office is an improvement.

The fact that insurance companies can't set "lifetime limits' or disqualify people for "Pre-existing conditions" is a good thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Summary: H.R. 676, The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act | Physicians for a National Health Program
^ see above ^

Instead of the part at the end, where funding for universal care would come from "increasing taxes on certain classes"
I would propose that each State work out plans to reform their prisons and mental health systems, where the amount of coverage is inversely proportional.

The greater the reduction in crime rates, incarceration, and prison spending, and the more cost-effective mental health programs that are implemented to save
tax dollars (as well as lives, incomes from working families, and other resources affected)
the people of each State would be rewarded with greater savings in resources to cover more health care for the population.

Both politicians and public should be rewarded for reducing crime and costs related.

By tying health care coverage to that, this would provide unified motivation to reduce the incidence and cost of crime
so that the same resources already being paid and spent can be redirected toward health care for all,
instead of increasing taxes to pay for that on top of the billions already being spent on crime and incarceration.

 

[Flopper]

Summary: H.R. 676, The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act | Physicians for a National Health Program
^ see above ^

Instead of the part at the end, where funding for universal care would come from "increasing taxes on certain classes"
I would propose that each State work out plans to reform their prisons and mental health systems, where the amount of coverage is inversely proportional.

The greater the reduction in crime rates, incarceration, and prison spending, and the more cost-effective mental health programs that are implemented to save
tax dollars (as well as lives, incomes from working families, and other resources affected)
the people of each State would be rewarded with greater savings in resources to cover more health care for the population.

Both politicians and public should be rewarded for reducing crime and costs related.

By tying health care coverage to that, this would provide unified motivation to reduce the incidence and cost of crime
so that the same resources already being paid and spent can be redirected toward health care for all,
instead of increasing taxes to pay for that on top of the billions already being spent on crime and incarceration.

Making healthcare coverage inversely proportional to crime/mental health problems doesn't make much sense. There is plenty of incentives now to rid our communities of crime and mental illness.. The problem is the cost of dealing with it is really high and many of the past programs haven't produced the expected results. This makes it really hard to get taxpayers to cough up more money to throw down the rabbit hole.
. .

 

[Moonglow]

What needs to be done is more health education to people and let them cure their own ills..

 

[Vandalshandle]

I was an executive in health insurance companies and HMO's for my entire career, but I have never had health insurance myself, that was as good as Medicare, except for the donut hole in prescriptions. That would go away instantly if Big Pharm. had not successfully lobbied for, and got, a law passed forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices.

 

[Flopper]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Neither party is going to do anything with healthcare for several reasons. Healthcare is not as important an issue with voters as it was 4 or 8 years ago. Secondly, neither party has any confidence in their ability to pass legislation that would lower cost while increasing or maintaining coverage and quality of care.

The major change that people want in our healthcare system is lower out of pocket costs. Democrats can't delivery that because they don't have and are not lightly to have enough votes in the House to pass legislation to spend more money on healthcare. Republicans pin their hopes of reducing cost on more completion among insurance companies. The only way that can happen is for federal legislation to stomp all over state regulations and that's not going to happen. Even if there were legislation to encourage more completion between insurance companies, it won't touch the real elephant in the closet, the large increase in medical cost of providing more coverage to really sick people.


Most Important Problem

 

[Flopper]

I was an executive in health insurance companies and HMO's for my entire career, but I have never had health insurance myself, that was as good as Medicare, except for the donut hole in prescriptions. That would go away instantly if Big Pharm. had not successfully lobbied for, and got, a law passed forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices.

I have Medicare with a supplement and have had it for some years. It's the best insurance I have ever had. I have not paid a healthcare bill in years. I have far better coverage than with any private insurance. I can live in where in the US without having to change insurance. I don't have to be concerned about an employer dropping insurance coverage or changing companies. The only problem is the screwy drug converge.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have Medicare. Good luck finding a doctor that accepts it. Most won't. I do have a medical provider. It's a physician's assistant with a rotating doctor. Most visits are conducted over the phone. Medicare does provide for a yearly wellness visit where I have to listen to a 45 minute end of life counseling lecture. I love messing with the PA. I tell her I want everything. All artificial measures.

For real medical care, I still have to pay for that myself.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Neither party is going to do anything with healthcare for several reasons. Healthcare is not as important an issue with voters as it was 4 or 8 years ago. Secondly, neither party has any confidence in their ability to pass legislation that would lower cost while increasing or maintaining coverage and quality of care.

The major change that people want in our healthcare system is lower out of pocket costs. Democrats can't delivery that because they don't have and are not lightly to have enough votes in the House to pass legislation to spend more money on healthcare. Republicans pin their hopes of reducing cost on more completion among insurance companies. The only way that can happen is for federal legislation to stomp all over state regulations and that's not going to happen. Even if there were legislation to encourage more completion between insurance companies, it won't touch the real elephant in the closet, the large increase in medical cost of providing more coverage to really sick people.


Most Important Problem

Gee....the problems of Obamacare defined.

I am still not sure how we spend 8,500 per person per year on health care.

A family of 6 would spend 43,000 per year. I know lots of families of 6 who don't spend anything.

Where the hell is it all going ?

 

[Flopper]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Neither party is going to do anything with healthcare for several reasons. Healthcare is not as important an issue with voters as it was 4 or 8 years ago. Secondly, neither party has any confidence in their ability to pass legislation that would lower cost while increasing or maintaining coverage and quality of care.

The major change that people want in our healthcare system is lower out of pocket costs. Democrats can't delivery that because they don't have and are not lightly to have enough votes in the House to pass legislation to spend more money on healthcare. Republicans pin their hopes of reducing cost on more completion among insurance companies. The only way that can happen is for federal legislation to stomp all over state regulations and that's not going to happen. Even if there were legislation to encourage more completion between insurance companies, it won't touch the real elephant in the closet, the large increase in medical cost of providing more coverage to really sick people.


Most Important Problem

Gee....the problems of Obamacare defined.

I am still not sure how we spend 8,500 per person per year on health care.

A family of 6 would spend 43,000 per year. I know lots of families of 6 who don't spend anything.

Where the hell is it all going ?

What's going on is 5% of the patients are responsible for 50% of the healthcare cost. If you think $8,500 is a lot for healthcare, you apparently haven't dealt with really big medical bills.
My cousin became very ill and was transported to a trauma center. He spent 21 days in ICU and had 4 operations. He had 15 doctors. The total cost of his medical bills were $470,000. He was responsible for only $5,000, his yearly out of pocket maximum. Insurance paid the remainder.

In a family of 6, just one serious disease requiring hospitalization is likely to cost over $43,000.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My Medical plan is EXACTLY the same as it was before ObamaCare. Oh, the company tried to scare us "omg, ObamaCare is coming, omg, omg, omg!!!!" And you know what, we have the same plan we had before, no real signifigant changes.

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Neither party is going to do anything with healthcare for several reasons. Healthcare is not as important an issue with voters as it was 4 or 8 years ago. Secondly, neither party has any confidence in their ability to pass legislation that would lower cost while increasing or maintaining coverage and quality of care.

The major change that people want in our healthcare system is lower out of pocket costs. Democrats can't delivery that because they don't have and are not lightly to have enough votes in the House to pass legislation to spend more money on healthcare. Republicans pin their hopes of reducing cost on more completion among insurance companies. The only way that can happen is for federal legislation to stomp all over state regulations and that's not going to happen. Even if there were legislation to encourage more completion between insurance companies, it won't touch the real elephant in the closet, the large increase in medical cost of providing more coverage to really sick people.


Most Important Problem

Gee....the problems of Obamacare defined.

I am still not sure how we spend 8,500 per person per year on health care.

A family of 6 would spend 43,000 per year. I know lots of families of 6 who don't spend anything.

Where the hell is it all going ?

What's going on is 5% of the patients are responsible for 50% of the healthcare cost. If you think $8,500 is a lot for healthcare, you apparently haven't dealt with really big medical bills.
My cousin became very ill and was transported to a trauma center. He spent 21 days in ICU and had 4 operations. He had 15 doctors. The total cost of his medical bills were $470,000. He was responsible for only $5,000, his yearly out of pocket maximum. Insurance paid the remainder.

In a family of 6, just one serious disease requiring hospitalization is likely to cost over $43,000.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Your cousin sucked up 10 families worth. How frequent is your cousin ?

There isn't a 1 in 10 ratio as near as I can tell.

And yes, I think 8,500 is a lot of healthcare and I have had some major surgeries.

If I had saved that amount over the years, I'd still be ahead if I had paid the entire thing.

I realize that is what insurance is for.

My point being that nothing is going to bring down the cost of insurance as long as we are paying that much per person.

 

[Flopper]

That's because it's been put on hold until after the mid-term elections, THEN you get screwed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that song for four years.

The only thing that's being put off until after the election is the mandate that employers who aren't providing Health Coverage pay a fine to pay for medicaid expansion. (And seriously, fuck those guys.) Doesn't maky a wit of difference to companies like the one I work for that already are doing the right thing.

Neither party is going to do anything with healthcare for several reasons. Healthcare is not as important an issue with voters as it was 4 or 8 years ago. Secondly, neither party has any confidence in their ability to pass legislation that would lower cost while increasing or maintaining coverage and quality of care.

The major change that people want in our healthcare system is lower out of pocket costs. Democrats can't delivery that because they don't have and are not lightly to have enough votes in the House to pass legislation to spend more money on healthcare. Republicans pin their hopes of reducing cost on more completion among insurance companies. The only way that can happen is for federal legislation to stomp all over state regulations and that's not going to happen. Even if there were legislation to encourage more completion between insurance companies, it won't touch the real elephant in the closet, the large increase in medical cost of providing more coverage to really sick people.


Most Important Problem

Gee....the problems of Obamacare defined.

I am still not sure how we spend 8,500 per person per year on health care.

A family of 6 would spend 43,000 per year. I know lots of families of 6 who don't spend anything.

Where the hell is it all going ?

What's going on is 5% of the patients are responsible for 50% of the healthcare cost. If you think $8,500 is a lot for healthcare, you apparently haven't dealt with really big medical bills.
My cousin became very ill and was transported to a trauma center. He spent 21 days in ICU and had 4 operations. He had 15 doctors. The total cost of his medical bills were $470,000. He was responsible for only $5,000, his yearly out of pocket maximum. Insurance paid the remainder.

In a family of 6, just one serious disease requiring hospitalization is likely to cost over $43,000.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Your cousin sucked up 10 families worth. How frequent is your cousin ?

There isn't a 1 in 10 ratio as near as I can tell.

And yes, I think 8,500 is a lot of healthcare and I have had some major surgeries.

If I had saved that amount over the years, I'd still be ahead if I had paid the entire thing.

I realize that is what insurance is for.

My point being that nothing is going to bring down the cost of insurance as long as we are paying that much per person.

What you seem to be neglecting is that someday you or a member of your family is likely to have huge medical costs that far exceed your yearly premiums. $8,500 is nothing compared to what you will pay for a couple weeks in the hospital or on going care for chronic illnesses such as cancer or heart disease. My wife's medical bills for last year topped a $150,000. 4 days for a bout with pneumonia was $34,000 When you start having serious healthcare expenses come back and tell me $8500 a year is a lot of healthcare and I will say BULL SHIT.