Medicare for all.

[Freewill]

I am for this IF it actually reigns in the greed of both the insurance companies, by making competition, and the spiraling health care costs. Also, EVERYONE must be covered under the same plan, Congress and the POTUS included.

I know a lot are against it for various reasons but considering that 80 percent of the population have healthcare provided for them, through their work place, what difference would it make the delivery system? Especially a system that would reduce cost to all? Or is that just a pipe dream?

Sanders prepares to reveal 'Medicare for all' bill

 

[Mac1958]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

 

[Freewill]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

 

[JoeB131]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.

This only makes sense if you think that the Insurance Companies aren't making enough money on human misery.

The rest of the industrialized world has single payer.

They spend less per capita/percentage of GDP.
They have longer life expectancies
They have lower infant mortality rates
Everyone is covered.
Nobody goes bankrupt because they get sick.

We will have single payer within ten years. We will all be better off for it.

 

[Mac1958]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the government pays a private insurance company per member per month (PMPM) to take over your Medicare. Then those companies can compete to offer the lowest premiums and provide the most extra goodies, like (extremely helpful) health club memberships. They include the drug plan. Because of the PMPM arrangement with the government, these premiums are much lower (even $0), but the plans have small co-pays like regular PPO & HMO plans.

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.
.

 

[JoeB131]

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

Yawn, the "Free Market" is the problem.

The problem with the free market is, if I have a product that will allow you to keep on living, i can pretty much charge you whatever I want for it. and you'll pay it, too.

Yeah, you can go to someone else for the same product, but they will probably be just as greedy as I am.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The stupidity of this thread makes me sad

 

[Freewill]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the government pays a private insurance company per member per month (PMPM) to take over your Medicare. Then those companies can compete to offer the lowest premiums and provide the most extra goodies, like (extremely helpful) health club memberships. They include the drug plan. Because of the PMPM arrangement with the government, these premiums are much lower (even $0), but the plans have small co-pays like regular PPO & HMO plans.

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.
.

It seems so logical. Even the advantage plans can be paid through SS Medicare. This would seemingly make the most people happy. Single payer, everyone pays, and there is still competition. Seems almost like a no brainer.

 

[JoeB131]

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.

I'm still failing to see why Ed Hanaway getting a Nine figure retirement bonus for cutting Nataline Sarkisyan's liver transplant is providing better health care.

The problem with insurance companies is that their primary obligation is not to provide good care, it's to provide a return on investment to their stockholders. So you will always get an Ed Hanaway at Cigna trying to screw people out of treatment once they've paid their money.

 

[Mac1958]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the government pays a private insurance company per member per month (PMPM) to take over your Medicare. Then those companies can compete to offer the lowest premiums and provide the most extra goodies, like (extremely helpful) health club memberships. They include the drug plan. Because of the PMPM arrangement with the government, these premiums are much lower (even $0), but the plans have small co-pays like regular PPO & HMO plans.

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.
.

It seems so logical. Even the advantage plans can be paid through SS Medicare. This would seemingly make the most people happy. Single payer, everyone pays, and there is still competition. Seems almost like a no brainer.

Well, I guarantee you that the Democrats would go for it. The Regressives who want true single payer would put up with it.

The problem is with the GOP here. This is staring them right in the face, but they're ideologically obligated to fight it.

If they're not careful, we WILL end up with true single payer, and they will have been complicit by not budging.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do what has been proven to work. Look toward other industrialized nations. Learn from them.

 

[Freewill]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the government pays a private insurance company per member per month (PMPM) to take over your Medicare. Then those companies can compete to offer the lowest premiums and provide the most extra goodies, like (extremely helpful) health club memberships. They include the drug plan. Because of the PMPM arrangement with the government, these premiums are much lower (even $0), but the plans have small co-pays like regular PPO & HMO plans.

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.
.

It seems so logical. Even the advantage plans can be paid through SS Medicare. This would seemingly make the most people happy. Single payer, everyone pays, and there is still competition. Seems almost like a no brainer.

Well, I guarantee you that the Democrats would go for it. The Regressives who want true single payer would put up with it.

The problem is with the GOP here. This is staring them right in the face, but they're ideologically obligated to fight it.

If they're not careful, we WILL end up with true single payer, and they will have been complicit by not budging.
.

I think with just the few responses the problem can be seen. Death Angel's comments are nothing more then keep their head in the sand and refusing to discuss anything other then what they think.

Rightwinger wants what he wants without even budging an inch.

I do agree with RWer in that making an insurance executive insanely rich is insane.

Those in opposition I think are those who have healthcare provided for them by their company. I think some how that makes them think that what they are getting is cheap, it ain't. Either they pay or the company pays.

As for 80 percent of the healthcare expenditures going for those over 65 that has little to do with what someone under 65 pays today. Those people are getting hosed.

Another problem is that I believe that the young think that they will never get sick, never get old, never get injured or never get pregnant.

 

[Freewill]

Do what has been proven to work. Look toward other industrialized nations. Learn from them.

Can you elaborate on what a another country of 308 million of a diverse culture and race has done that is successful?

 

[Mac1958]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the government pays a private insurance company per member per month (PMPM) to take over your Medicare. Then those companies can compete to offer the lowest premiums and provide the most extra goodies, like (extremely helpful) health club memberships. They include the drug plan. Because of the PMPM arrangement with the government, these premiums are much lower (even $0), but the plans have small co-pays like regular PPO & HMO plans.

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.
.

It seems so logical. Even the advantage plans can be paid through SS Medicare. This would seemingly make the most people happy. Single payer, everyone pays, and there is still competition. Seems almost like a no brainer.

Well, I guarantee you that the Democrats would go for it. The Regressives who want true single payer would put up with it.

The problem is with the GOP here. This is staring them right in the face, but they're ideologically obligated to fight it.

If they're not careful, we WILL end up with true single payer, and they will have been complicit by not budging.
.

I think with just the few responses the problem can be seen. Death Angel's comments are nothing more then keep their head in the sand and refusing to discuss anything other then what they think.

Rightwinger wants what he wants without even budging an inch.

I do agree with RWer in that making an insurance executive insanely rich is insane.

Those in opposition I think are those who have healthcare provided for them by their company. I think some how that makes them think that what they are getting is cheap, it ain't. Either they pay or the company pays.

As for 80 percent of the healthcare expenditures going for those over 65 that has little to do with what someone under 65 pays today. Those people are getting hosed.

Another problem is that I believe that the young think that they will never get sick, never get old, never get injured or never get pregnant.

Yeah. Of all the major issues we're facing, this one would be the easiest to fix.

As far as putting people under 65 on it, here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: Have the plan operating on a sliding scale, so that your Medicare coverage percentage is lower when you're young and healthier and increases as you age, maybe every five years.

So for example, a 25 year old might have 50% Medicare coverage (with critical preventive and diagnostic coverage), and buy a plan that covers the rest at a much lower premium than they'd pay today with no Medicare coverage. As they get older and (presumably) less healthy, their overall costs even out because their Medicare coverage would increase and their private plan would decrease in both coverage and cost.

There are ways to do this that make sense. All it takes is communication, something not currently allowed.
.

 

[Old Rocks]

The conversation on this is still distorted.

IF we're talking about expanding the current public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement to all - yes, absolutely, immediately, please.

IF we're talking about true Single Payer, the government paying for everything, no way. And the politicians are too smart to even try such a thing. Most of them.

The problem is, very few people understand how the current Medicare system actually works, so this is an asymmetrical, wasteful conversation for now.
.

I don't know Sander's plan or the details. BUT if it works like Medicare, as I know it, then a premium is paid to the government and out of that premium are paid the benefits. 80/20. After that the person has the ability to buy supplemental plans or advantage plans, which the insurance companies are falling over themselves to sell to those on Medicare.

So I can see that working. I am not sure how you are not saying Medicare is not single payer now.

One major problem is, I think there is vast rip off of Medicare going on today. That would need fixed, if possible.

That's more than most people know.

Medicare Supplements are completely free market-based. So they cover the gaps left over by deductibles and the 80/20 co-insurance. Plus, standard Medicare has no annual out-of-pocket maximums, so people who only have Medicare can still get nailed. The "F" Medicare Supplement, for example, pays pretty much all bills for Medicare-approved treatments. You then need a standalone PDP, Prescription Drug Plan, to go with it. So, for the whole package, a 65-year old will pay around $200-$250 per month.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the government pays a private insurance company per member per month (PMPM) to take over your Medicare. Then those companies can compete to offer the lowest premiums and provide the most extra goodies, like (extremely helpful) health club memberships. They include the drug plan. Because of the PMPM arrangement with the government, these premiums are much lower (even $0), but the plans have small co-pays like regular PPO & HMO plans.

I specifically separate Medicare from "single payer", because true single payer allows for no free market competition.

Here's the thing: About 80% of our health care costs go to people already on Medicare, 65+, for obvious reasons, they're much sicker. Putting young and healthy people on this would MASSIVELY shrink the average cost curve. Plus these individual plans would take a MASSIVE cost monkey off the backs of American employers.

It's sitting right there. It already works. We can make it more efficient with time. But our "leaders" are cowards.
.

There is another factor to this. That type of system would free up people that would like to try to be entrepreneurs but don't dare because of a medical condition in their family. It would also make give small companies a leg up on competing with bigger companies as their employees would have adaquete health care.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I have medicare. This means I get better care from a paid witch doctor shaking bones over my body. Medicare is like the commercials. They aren't doctors, they are doctor monitors. Yep. You're really sick.

Care improves if I have already researched and diagnosed the condition and determined the prescription.

All this means is that I still must negotiate payment with a real doctor just like I always did before medicare.

 

[Pop23]

I am for this IF it actually reigns in the greed of both the insurance companies, by making competition, and the spiraling health care costs. Also, EVERYONE must be covered under the same plan, Congress and the POTUS included.

I know a lot are against it for various reasons but considering that 80 percent of the population have healthcare provided for them, through their work place, what difference would it make the delivery system? Especially a system that would reduce cost to all? Or is that just a pipe dream?

Sanders prepares to reveal 'Medicare for all' bill

I've considered this to a point. Since one problem is pre-existing conditions cause much of the health care issues, just make those conditions a part of Medicare if insurance will not cover them. Everything else a person needs insurance for, falls under the individuals private policy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do what has been proven to work. Look toward other industrialized nations. Learn from them.

Can you elaborate on what a another country of 308 million of a diverse culture and race has done that is successful?

Why would I do that? Do you think I have a desire to bang my head up against a brick wall?

You want to make health care a race issue? How unusual!

 

[Freewill]

I have medicare. This means I get better care from a paid witch doctor shaking bones over my body. Medicare is like the commercials. They aren't doctors, they are doctor monitors. Yep. You're really sick.

Care improves if I have already researched and diagnosed the condition and determined the prescription.

All this means is that I still must negotiate payment with a real doctor just like I always did before medicare.

before and after Medicare, I see no difference in treatment.

 

[Freewill]

Do what has been proven to work. Look toward other industrialized nations. Learn from them.

Can you elaborate on what a another country of 308 million of a diverse culture and race has done that is successful?

Why would I do that? Do you think I have a desire to bang my head up against a brick wall?

You want to make health care a race issue? How unusual!

I just hope that whatever they come up with, for your sake, mental health is covered.