Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't see how adding more people to Medicare is going to funnel more money to insurance companies. It's going reduce the risk of insuring people and that's going to bring premiums down. State laws require that premiums be calculated based actuarial data; that is premiums must be related to risks. If risks goes down, so must premiums.People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.
I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.
The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.
Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.
Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.
There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.
Ahh... the boiling frog strategy. Good one.
Your plan sounds like an insurance exec's wet dream.
Much like ACA, the overarching goal here is to funnel as much money as possible to the insurance industry. But rather than mess around trying to force people to buy insurance, the government will just buy it on their behalf and tax them for it. This is called "Medicare". The insurance companies get our money, either way.
Well when you figure out a plan to remove government from healthcare please share it with us.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits
Increase the number insured
Give people more choices in healthcare coverage
And NO:
Government mandates
Change in quality of service
Change required in current insurance or doctors
Changes to the ACA
If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.
Well when figure out a plan to remove government from healthcare please share it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits
Increase the number insured
Give people more choices in healthcare coverage
And NO:
Government mandates
Change in quality of service
Change required in current insurance or doctors
Changes to the ACA
If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.
I don't see how adding more people to Medicare is going to funnel more money to insurance companies. It's going reduce the risk of insuring people and that's going to bring premiums down. State laws require that premiums be calculated based actuarial data; that is premiums must be related to risks. If risks goes down, so must premiums.People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.
I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.
The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.
Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.
Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.
There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.
Ahh... the boiling frog strategy. Good one.
Your plan sounds like an insurance exec's wet dream.
Much like ACA, the overarching goal here is to funnel as much money as possible to the insurance industry. But rather than mess around trying to force people to buy insurance, the government will just buy it on their behalf and tax them for it. This is called "Medicare". The insurance companies get our money, either way.
People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.
I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.
The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.
Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.
Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.
There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.
I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits
Increase the number insured
Give people more choices in healthcare coverage
And NO:
Government mandates
Change in quality of service
Change required in current insurance or doctors
Changes to the ACA
If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.
I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits
Increase the number insured
Give people more choices in healthcare coverage
And NO:
Government mandates
Change in quality of service
Change required in current insurance or doctors
Changes to the ACA
If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.
My plan is completely voluntary. The only legislation required is to reduce the age requirement for Medicare gradually over about 10 years till it reaches 50. That's it. People who are eligible for Medicare will be free to get their insurance form their employer's or from Medicare. If they select their employer's insurance, they will sign over their medicare benefits to their employer insurance plan, the same as is done now. Their premiums will of course go down along with costs of the plan and thus premiums for other employees will decrease.People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.
I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.
The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.
Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.
Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.
There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.
Dear Flopper
One PROVEN way to lower the costs (ie without doing it artificially by government regulations)
is to set up the direct care concierge plans to cut out the high costs, profits, waste and administrative burdens of claims.
So this isn't just FORCING the prices down, but naturally reducing them
as the consequence of cutting out bureaucratic expense that otherwise muddles up health care services and jacks up the costs.
If you want to try proposing your plan to see if it is manageable,
I believe people deserve to see proof it works BEFORE choosing to participate.
I don't believe anyone can just impose plans through govt on the promise or assumption
it will work.
First show that the costs are reduced by making changes.
Then you can offer lower costs without imposing this through regulations that require people affected to consent to those changes.
Concierge plans, where the patient pays a medical group a fix fee for services exist today and they can be a good fit for some people who are pretty healthy and only need a primary care doctor. The reason why they work is the medical group has very limited risks because they do not include all care a person might need. Primary care doctors do not generate huge bills and thus the risks are limited as are fees.People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.
I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.
The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.
Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.
Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.
There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.
Dear Flopper
One PROVEN way to lower the costs (ie without doing it artificially by government regulations)
is to set up the direct care concierge plans to cut out the high costs, profits, waste and administrative burdens of claims.
So this isn't just FORCING the prices down, but naturally reducing them
as the consequence of cutting out bureaucratic expense that otherwise muddles up health care services and jacks up the costs.
If you want to try proposing your plan to see if it is manageable,
I believe people deserve to see proof it works BEFORE choosing to participate.
I don't believe anyone can just impose plans through govt on the promise or assumption
it will work.
First show that the costs are reduced by making changes.
Then you can offer lower costs without imposing this through regulations that require people affected to consent to those changes.
How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits
Increase the number insured
Give people more choices in healthcare coverage
And NO:
Government mandates
Change in quality of service
Change required in current insurance or doctors
Changes to the ACA
If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.
why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???
that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,
Before we adhere to another Democrat health care plan, the Democrats need to clean up their socialistic areas of where people do not have to work because they voted Democrats who promised them they didn't have to work, enjoy the weed, and behave. Here's the response they got for all that freebie stuff they pickpocketed out of taxpayers:It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.
How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.
why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???
that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,
If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,No, my plan adds no government mandates.
why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???
that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,
its all a matter of perspective,,,
first we have to do whats legal,,,
then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,
and at the fed level its just not legal,,,
now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house
If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,
why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???
that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,
its all a matter of perspective,,,
first we have to do whats legal,,,
then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,
and at the fed level its just not legal,,,
now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house
Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.
why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???
that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,
its all a matter of perspective,,,
first we have to do whats legal,,,
then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,
and at the fed level its just not legal,,,
now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house
as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,
Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???
that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,
its all a matter of perspective,,,
first we have to do whats legal,,,
then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,
and at the fed level its just not legal,,,
now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house
as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,
To delegate means to entrust, to assign powers regardless of whether those powers are expressly stated or implied. To delegate powers makes no judgement as to whether those powers are expressly stated or implied.Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.
its all a matter of perspective,,,
first we have to do whats legal,,,
then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,
and at the fed level its just not legal,,,
now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house
as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,
thats simple,,,just read it,,,
it very clearly says delegated powers not implied,,,
To delegate means to entrust, to assign powers regardless of whether those powers are expressly stated or implied. To delegate powers makes no judgement as to whether those powers are expressly stated or implied.Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.its all a matter of perspective,,,
first we have to do whats legal,,,
then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,
and at the fed level its just not legal,,,
now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house
as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,
thats simple,,,just read it,,,
it very clearly says delegated powers not implied,,,
So when the ten amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," it means means powers not assigned to the United States by the Constitution. It does not mean powers not expressly stated.
The founding fathers were well aware of the meaning of delegating powers versus delegating expressly stated powers. They were discussed in the Federalist papers. So it is no accident that the 10th amendment reads powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
James Madison argued against using the wording expressly stated "as it would force Congress to do nothing in times of need or to work around the term, the former disarming Congress and the latter forcing Congress to disregard the Constitution." The congress agreed and the amendment submitted for ratification would include the term " delegated powers" and not expressed stated powers.
The Original Meaning of the Tenth Amendment and "Expressly" Delegated Power | Tenth Amendment Center
The free market isn't leaving "it" to corporations. It's leaving it to "we the people".The free market alone won't do a thing. Leave it to corporations and nothing good gets done without big time oversight.
