Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.

I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.

In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide.

Regardless of USA's future medical insurance policies and practices, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance would reduce the costs to government and/or nongovernment medical insurers and be to our nation's best interests. State regulators of medical insurers practices and fees would expect medical insurance prices to reflect the burden of costs shifted to the federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn

Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...
 

DGS49

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
8,787
Reaction score
2,565
Points
290
Location
Pittsburgh
Without being overtly political, it is clear that "Obama-Care" was intended to fail, with that failure leading to a public outcry and demand for socialized medicine in one form or another.

The "elephant in the room" for Leftists who want socialized medicine is that the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.

Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise.

The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), (2) allow interstate competition for health insurance companies, and (3) to have a government backstop protecting insurance companies from the "black hole" of people with expensive "pre-existing conditions." And a little malpractice-abuse protection wouldn't hurt, but since tort law is controlled by the STATES, that would be constitutionally problematic.

Insurance #1 above would have deductibles and co-pays, and would primarily protect young people in case of a catastrophic disease or illness. It CERTAINLY would not cover things like birth control, abortion, or routine office visits. It WOULD contain a provision for an annual physical, at which the screening mentioned above would take place.

This is one of those cases where the solutions that everyone knows are needed are not implemented because the Democrats want to have this issue available for their own political exploitation, and solving it would take that away. Just like abortion, the death penalty, the minimum wage, and so on. Democrats are evil.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,641
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
The political situation in the US is too volatile to trust the government with our health care. I don't want every single election to be a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
DGS49, your political post begins with,
Without being overtly political, it is clear that "Obama-Care" was intended to fail, with that failure leading to a public outcry and demand for socialized medicine in one form or another.
The "elephant in the room" for Leftists who want socialized medicine is that the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different. ...
... This is one of those cases where the solutions that everyone knows are needed are not implemented because the Democrats want to have this issue available for their own political exploitation, and solving it would take that away. Just like abortion, the death penalty, the minimum wage, and so on. Democrats are evil.
Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives. ...
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
I’m unaware of any Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) study regarding cost of any specific “Medicare for all”, (aka M4A) proposal. Such a study should also consider taxpayers and insurance payers current expenditures for medical insurance and treatment. It would be an expensive task.

I’m undecided until such a study has been done. Refer to:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k[/video
Respectfully, Supposn
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,347
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,100
Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
absurd of course. It would be like saying car companies would not or could not supply cars. Capitalist health care would reduce health care costs by 80% thanks to competition
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
15,327
Reaction score
2,175
Points
280
Healthcare is achieved in a much more equitable fashion in many other countries at less cost per person.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
EdwardBaiamonte
Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
absurd of course. It would be like saying car companies would not or could not supply cars. Capitalist health care would reduce health care costs by 80% thanks to competition
EdwardBaiamonte. can you name many, or some, or any of the world's non-government insurance enterprises providing their nation's populations affordable health insurance without their government's substantial assistance? Can you name any non-government insurance industry that do so serves their nations population even with government's assistance?

Insurance enterprises didn't do it when there was no government intervention; they don't do it now, why should we accept your contention that they can and want to do what they had no prior interest to do?
Respectfully, Supposn
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Granny says, "Dat's right...

... what we need is an affordable...

... medical insurance policy for all...

... not ObamaCare."
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Granny says, "Dat's right...

... what we need is an affordable...

... medical insurance policy for all...

... not ObamaCare."
WaltKy, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Is a compromise that didn’t please anyone. Republicans are displeased because the act de-accelerated medical insurance companies’ price increases, and considerations for pre-existing conditions. Democrats are displeased because Obama did not get his ‘government option” that would have consequentially provided cheaper and better-quality medical insurance.


This is similar to another compromise. Clinton got governments foot in the door, and we now have Medicare prescription Drug insurance, but the Republicans were able to keep the costs of prescription drugs higher.
Because the federal government is prohibited from operating their own drug insurance plan, the prices to USA purchasers of prescription drugs are greater than the prices for the same or similar formula drugs sold beyond our borders. Often those individual drugs sold within and beyond USA ‘borders were produced by the same producer, and often when they are produced beyond our borders, they are produced by a subsidiary of a USA drug company.

I and all my elderly acquaintances report no encountering of serious problems with federal administration of Medicare, but I and many of my doctors, and acquaintances have reported experiencing delays and additional expenses due to non-government enterprises’ administrating their prescription drug insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,314
Reaction score
6,230
Points
290
Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.

I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.

In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide.

Regardless of USA's future medical insurance policies and practices, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance would reduce the costs to government and/or nongovernment medical insurers and be to our nation's best interests. State regulators of medical insurers practices and fees would expect medical insurance prices to reflect the burden of costs shifted to the federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn

Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...

I think that if states or cities want to do this, they should.

But entrusting this to a Federal Government run by a Stalin wannabe like Crazy Bernie is insane and divisive. The Democrats who would be running Congress would look to use this to punish those "Red States" who refused to toe the liberal line. Just like they did with the ACA. The ACA provided MASSIVE federal aid to states that could afford to expand Medicaid, paid for by poorer states that didn't do it. That was unfair, IMHO. The Feds should have cut checks to states like Texas so they could improve their health in other ways other than expanded medicaid.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Regardless of USA's future medical insurance policies and practices, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance would reduce the costs to government and/or nongovernment medical insurers and be to our nation's best interests. State regulators of medical insurers practices and fees would expect medical insurance prices to reflect the burden of costs shifted to the federal government. … ...
I think that if states or cities want to do this, they should.

But entrusting this to a Federal Government run by a Stalin wannabe like Crazy Bernie is insane and divisive. The Democrats who would be running Congress would look to use this to punish those "Red States" who refused to toe the liberal line. Just like they did with the ACA. … . The ACA provided MASSIVE federal aid to states that could afford to expand Medicaid, paid for by poorer states that didn't do it. That was unfair, IMHO. The Feds should have cut checks to states like Texas so they could improve their health in other ways other than expanded Medicaid.
Polishprince, these two proposals would reduce the cost to all medical government or non-government medical insurers that meets Affordable Care Act’s standards. Unlike our federal government, it’s less feasible, if not unfeasible for any USA state to enact and sustain such proposals.

Regardless if we adopt federal “Medicare for All” or eliminate federal Medicare, to the extents of entities’ directly or indirectly paying for both their taxes and any portions of their medical insurance costs, these two proposals would reduce those individuals and those other entities’ total net costs.

"The Democrats who would be running Congress would look to use this to punish those "Red States" who refused to toe the liberal line" ? "Just like they did with the ACA" ? Respectfully, Supposn
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,347
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,100
Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
Total 100% lie of course. Private sector provides millions of products in all industries. Private sector would provide products and services in health care industry too but at about 25% of the current price thanks to competition. Liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism so propose socialism instead because it is easy enough for them to understand. The govt Santa Claus just gives you free stuff.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
Total 100% lie of course. Private sector provides millions of products in all industries. Private sector would provide products and services in health care industry too but at about 25% of the current price thanks to competition. Liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism so propose socialism instead because it is easy enough for them to understand. The govt Santa Claus just gives you free stuff.
EdwardBaiamonte, if prior to Medicare, commercial insurers could have done it better, why didn't they do it? Commercial insurers didn't choose to compete for the additional business? Was the elderly market too small to attract their interest? Respectfully, Supposn
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
15,327
Reaction score
2,175
Points
280
The 'market' looks after the 'market'. Those who propose that it will adjust for the benefit of humans deceive any who would believe.
Systems such as this are created by people and should serve people, not greedy instincts.
'Capitalism' without controls has shown itself to be against our best interests every bit as much as Marxist-Stalinism. The history is evident.
We don't need ideology, we need ideas that are the best for the most with the least weight of control, management and expenditure of resources.
That's eclectic.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,641
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
The 'market' looks after the 'market'. Those who propose that it will adjust for the benefit of humans deceive any who would believe.
Systems such as this are created by people and should serve people, not greedy instincts.
The market does both. Unless there is fraud involved, and as long as people are allowed to make value decisions free of coercion, then the market is serving their interests, The market IS their interests.


'Capitalism' without controls has shown itself to be against our best interests every bit as much as Marxist-Stalinism. The history is evident.
We don't need ideology, we need ideas that are the best for the most with the least weight of control, management and expenditure of resources.
That's eclectic.
Government should not have the power to dictate our economic decisions. Political power should be kept distinct and separate from economic power. Just like we have with religion (and for the same reasons), we need.a Constitutional "wall of separation" to prevent collusion between the state and business interests.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
15,327
Reaction score
2,175
Points
280
"Fraud" is integrated in the "market". the "market" is essentially inhuman because it is based entirely on materialism. It is concerned only with itself and increase. Life re-enforces life, the "market" re-enforces feces.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,641
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
"Fraud" is integrated in the "market". the "market" is essentially inhuman because it is based entirely on materialism. It is concerned only with itself and increase. Life re-enforces life, the "market" re-enforces feces.
Uh-huh. Right.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,347
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,100
if prior to Medicare, commercial insurers could have done it better, why didn't they do it?
They did do it. You just don't know it. Just like you don't know they did it better in Russia and China before the libcommies took over and killed 160 million trying to do it better!! Now do you understand?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top