Medicare's a public plan with non-government options..

[Supposn]

Medicare's a public plan with non-government options. Medicare-auxiliary and Medicare-supplemental insurance are profit and non-profit optional additions to Medicare. They are not administered but are regulated by the government.

During various periods prior to our retirements, my wife and I have been insured by various health care organizations. None of them enabled us to receive health care superior to that provided by Medicare’s coverage. Specifically Medicare’s health care for us has been superior to that we received from the non-profit “Health Insurance Plan”, (aka “HIP” HMO) or when we were able to receive when we were every expensively covered by the commercial health insurance division of the Metropolitan Life Corporation.

There are sufficient numbers of health providers that are well qualified to treat us and are pleased to accept Medicare insured patients. We have on rare occasions declined to continue using some doctors. We chose to replace them.

We have encountered some rationing of services. Medicare will not pay for “casting” my feet or the shoe inserts that would be produced from those casts On the other hand I never asked for bypass surgery, but I appreciate that it was provided to me. For years I declined to accept a pacemaker. I thought doctors were over-stating my risk of fainting and my cracking my skull when I fall. I agreed only after being told that I could conceivably be a public menace while I’m driving.

The only difference between government’s or non-government rationing (of medical goods and services) is government’s answerable to the voters and private enterprises are answerable to their investors. I’d entrust my health to the government rather than a corporate board of directors.

Medicare clients are free to purchase any medical goods, service or insurance for anything Medicare does not cover or the client considers to be unsatisfactorily covered.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[KittenKoder]

Medicare went bankrupt and everyone on it has to also have private insurance for coverage, not to mention that you "pay for it" every month anyway.

 

[Supposn]

Kittenkoder,
Apparently everyone hates Medicare EXCEPT USA ‘residents over 65 years of age who receive U.S. Social Security retirement checks and their children. That’s the overwhelming majority of USA’s over 65 population and their direct descendents.

I do not approve of the manner that Medicare is funded, but it is not bankrupt. Unless the government replaces it with a superior public health insurance plan, it should not, (and it will not) be eliminated. You mention that people pay something for it every month. You object to that? You also state “everyone on it has to also have private insurance for coverage”; you are mistake.

As a voter, I’m trying to learn as much as I can about Medicare’s “nuts and bolts”. I’ve begun seeking explicit and authoritive information.

It’s apparent that the Republican Party will continue to shoot themselves in the foot as long as they continue their endeavors to undermine and destroy Social Security or Medicare.

I advocate establishing some program similar to Medicare for the coverage o all children. That would significantly decrease the expenses of all existing family and/or children’s’ health care plans. It will reduce the medical expenses of all guardians, employers, states, labor or other entities that are now directly or indirectly paying for children’s health care.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Cecilie1200]

Medicare's a public plan with non-government options. Medicare-auxiliary and Medicare-supplemental insurance are profit and non-profit optional additions to Medicare. They are not administered but are regulated by the government.

During various periods prior to our retirements, my wife and I have been insured by various health care organizations. None of them enabled us to receive health care superior to that provided by Medicare’s coverage. Specifically Medicare’s health care for us has been superior to that we received from the non-profit “Health Insurance Plan”, (aka “HIP” HMO) or when we were able to receive when we were every expensively covered by the commercial health insurance division of the Metropolitan Life Corporation.

There are sufficient numbers of health providers that are well qualified to treat us and are pleased to accept Medicare insured patients. We have on rare occasions declined to continue using some doctors. We chose to replace them.

We have encountered some rationing of services. Medicare will not pay for “casting” my feet or the shoe inserts that would be produced from those casts On the other hand I never asked for bypass surgery, but I appreciate that it was provided to me. For years I declined to accept a pacemaker. I thought doctors were over-stating my risk of fainting and my cracking my skull when I fall. I agreed only after being told that I could conceivably be a public menace while I’m driving.

The only difference between government’s or non-government rationing (of medical goods and services) is government’s answerable to the voters and private enterprises are answerable to their investors. I’d entrust my health to the government rather than a corporate board of directors.

Medicare clients are free to purchase any medical goods, service or insurance for anything Medicare does not cover or the client considers to be unsatisfactorily covered.

Respectfully, Supposn

Options? I would like to know how anyone sane can call "95% of seniors are on Medicare, the other 5% pay out-of-pocket, and you either buy coverage for things Medicare doesn't pay or you do without altogether" as "having options". Are we supposed to say thank you to the government for "only" taking over 95% of the market and "generously" allowing the supplements to be private?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kittenkoder,
Apparently everyone hates Medicare EXCEPT USA ‘residents over 65 years of age who receive U.S. Social Security retirement checks and their children. That’s the overwhelming majority of USA’s over 65 population and their direct descendents.

I do not approve of the manner that Medicare is funded, but it is not bankrupt. Unless the government replaces it with a superior public health insurance plan, it should not, (and it will not) be eliminated. You mention that people pay something for it every month. You object to that? You also state “everyone on it has to also have private insurance for coverage”; you are mistake.

As a voter, I’m trying to learn as much as I can about Medicare’s “nuts and bolts”. I’ve begun seeking explicit and authoritive information.

It’s apparent that the Republican Party will continue to shoot themselves in the foot as long as they continue their endeavors to undermine and destroy Social Security or Medicare.

I advocate establishing some program similar to Medicare for the coverage o all children. That would significantly decrease the expenses of all existing family and/or children’s’ health care plans. It will reduce the medical expenses of all guardians, employers, states, labor or other entities that are now directly or indirectly paying for children’s health care.

Respectfully, Supposn

Medicare isn't going bankrupt? Really? Perhaps you should tell the Medicare Trustees that, because THEY certainly seem to think it is.

A "program similar to Medicare for children"? Ever hear of "SCHIP"? Medicaid? And how do you figure raising my taxes to cover healthcare for everyone else's kids is going to decrease my expenses? Or anyone else's, other than the freeloaders who will just let the rest of us take up their slack?

 

[Supposn]

Cecilie1200,
I was responding to the statement that Medicare has gone bankrupt”. I know that it’s under-funded by our government. I’m an advocate of funding all government’s net expenses for medical entitlements with a sales tax. There is no logical relationship between income and medical need.

Yes, I am aware of Children’s Health Insurance Plans, (CHIPs) within most if not all states. I had CHIPs in mind when I advocated Medicare’s expansion to cover all children.

Obama has committed his administration to induce congressional passage of a federal health plan. I believe the passage and commencement of a federal health plan during his administration is inevitable. I want the best outcome for our nation.

Due to programs such as CHIPs, our federal and states and local governments are already spending a great deal of money on behalf of children. Expanding Medicare to cover all children would be a significant contribution the present and future health of our nation. If we can’t afford to cover everyone now, we couldn’t do better than to tale care of our children first.

Universal health care for children would attract the greatest political support and it would be the most difficult health plan to oppose. There’s no relationship between income and medical need. I advocate all government’s net expenses for health entitlements be funded by a sales tax.

Cecilie, I doubt if you’re concerned about my finances and I don’t pretend to be worried about yours. I’d be pleased if we both shared a sincere concern for the best interests of our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie1200,
I was responding to the statement that Medicare has gone bankrupt”. I know that it’s under-funded by our government. I’m an advocate of funding all government’s net expenses for medical entitlements with a sales tax. There is no logical relationship between income and medical need.

You think the problem with Medicare is that the government just isn't throwing enough money at it? Are you really this simpleminded?

And could you explain to me why you think everyone else should be paying for your medical care, much less why YOU should view it as something you're "entitled" to? There's no logical relationship between your medical need and my being responsible for it, either.

Yes, I am aware of Children’s Health Insurance Plans, (CHIPs) within most if not all states. I had CHIPs in mind when I advocated Medicare’s expansion to cover all children.

Same question. Why am I supposed to foot the bill for someone else's kid, including - apparently - the children of people who make more money than I do?

Obama has committed his administration to induce congressional passage of a federal health plan. I believe the passage and commencement of a federal health plan during his administration is inevitable. I want the best outcome for our nation.

Sounds like two divergent goals, then: Obama achieving his aim, and the best outcome for our nation.

Due to programs such as CHIPs, our federal and states and local governments are already spending a great deal of money on behalf of children. Expanding Medicare to cover all children would be a significant contribution the present and future health of our nation. If we can’t afford to cover everyone now, we couldn’t do better than to tale care of our children first.

Take care of your own damned children. I have enough of a problem with poor people fobbing their responsibilities off on the rest of us, without people who make more money than I do doing it, too.

Universal health care for children would attract the greatest political support and it would be the most difficult health plan to oppose. There’s no relationship between income and medical need. I advocate all government’s net expenses for health entitlements be funded by a sales tax.

Great. I'm so proud of you that you've figured out how to bypass common sense with sob stories, heartstring-tugging, and guilt trips.

Cecilie, I doubt if you’re concerned about my finances and I don’t pretend to be worried about yours. I’d be pleased if we both shared a sincere concern for the best interests of our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

If we shared a concern for the best interests of our nation, you wouldn't be advocating robbing your neighbors to pay for your health care.

 

[Supposn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/o...l=1&adxnnlx=1252422321-BVJC+rhUdOQOGAheQweMjw

Health Care That Works
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NY Times, published: September 2, 2009