We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[Flopper]

You're a funny guy ray. Corporations are so anti monopoly.

The payer is single dumbass.

WTF do you mean the payer is single? Medicare for all is government healthcare. If that's what everybody has to use, then they make the calls.

No, government healthcare is when government delivers the healthcare. Under Medicare for All, goverment replaces the insurance company. Your claim that people will be slaves to the government is pure speculation and IMHO is an exaggeration. What Medicare for All will look like, is completely undefined. At this point in time, it is a concept to move everyone with primary private health insurance to the existing Medicare system or some similar plan at some undefined date.

Medicare for All will most probably not be Medicare as we known and it will not it be for all. I believe the most likely outcome will be the gradual lowering of the Medicare age requirement in order to remove older adults from private insurance. It could also include people that have very expensive lifetime treatments such End Stage Renal failure which Medicare now pays 80% of the cost regardless of age. If this is where Medicare for All ends up, it will drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF do you mean the payer is single? Medicare for all is government healthcare. If that's what everybody has to use, then they make the calls.

No, government healthcare is when government delivers the healthcare. Under Medicare for All, goverment replaces the insurance company. Your claim that people will be slaves to the government is pure speculation and IMHO is an exaggeration. What Medicare for All will look like, is completely undefined. At this point in time, it is a concept to move everyone with primary private health insurance to the existing Medicare system or some similar plan at some undefined date.

Medicare for All will most probably not be Medicare as we known and it will not it be for all. I believe the most likely outcome will be the gradual lowering of the Medicare age requirement in order to remove older adults from private insurance. It could also include people that have very expensive lifetime treatments such End Stage Renal failure which Medicare now pays 80% of the cost regardless of age. If this is where Medicare for All ends up, it will drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

You're a funny guy ray. Corporations are so anti monopoly.

The payer is single dumbass.

WTF do you mean the payer is single? Medicare for all is government healthcare. If that's what everybody has to use, then they make the calls.

You're an idiot Ray, Jesus. Kept my doctor and all when I shifted over.

Turns out I called for an appt yesterday, got in the next day, renowned major metropolitan downtown research medical center hospital.

Maybe the sky is falling elsewhere.

You can keep your doctor and hospital if you can afford it. Commie Care only offers one insurance company for my clinic that I've been going to all of my life. They wanted a third of my net pay, and it didn't cover anything. 7K out of pocket, 7K deductible, no prescription coverage, no dental, a $50.00 doctor office copay. It was only good if you got hit by a bus.

You must be in the lower income bracket and get a sizable subsidy. They didn't give me shit. I have to pay over $200.00 a month just for my prescriptions and test equipment. HTF can I afford that and pay a third of what I make to a plan that doesn't do me any good?

No dumbass.

"You must be in the lower income bracket and get a sizable subsidy."

My last 26 years of employment were in the pharmaceutical industry thanks, "they didn't give me shit" either, no idea what you're blathering on about.

Regular Part A as everyone gets as a matter of fact: no charge. Part B Advantage plan through Anthem (Mediblue Plus) for the identical price of regular Part B, comes out of my SS check just as if it were Medicare Part B. This was offered as a option through the Medicare site itself. Comes with vision, dental, hearing, chiropractic & prescription coverage.

$5 office visit copay
$40 Specialist visit copay
$90 ER copay
$0 Preventive copay
$4900 Yearly max out of pocket
$75 deductible for prescriptions
$0 deductible for medical coverage

My yearly prescriptions cost is less than the employer's plan I left, and did I mention, included?

Whoever is focking you, it isn't Medicare and could be your own ignorance.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

No, government healthcare is when government delivers the healthcare. Under Medicare for All, goverment replaces the insurance company. Your claim that people will be slaves to the government is pure speculation and IMHO is an exaggeration. What Medicare for All will look like, is completely undefined. At this point in time, it is a concept to move everyone with primary private health insurance to the existing Medicare system or some similar plan at some undefined date.

Medicare for All will most probably not be Medicare as we known and it will not it be for all. I believe the most likely outcome will be the gradual lowering of the Medicare age requirement in order to remove older adults from private insurance. It could also include people that have very expensive lifetime treatments such End Stage Renal failure which Medicare now pays 80% of the cost regardless of age. If this is where Medicare for All ends up, it will drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

Concentrated capital, same as it ever was. You're only going to your shitty little clinic anyway, like you said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

Concentrated capital, same as it ever was. You're only going to your shitty little clinic anyway, like you said.

My "clinic" is one of the top hospitals in the country. It draws people from all around the world. Since it is here, everybody would love to be treated there. If we were Medicare for all, what would concentrated capital have to do with it?

Point is, it would have to become political. Somebody or some people would have to make those decisions.

 

[Flopper]

No, government healthcare is when government delivers the healthcare. Under Medicare for All, goverment replaces the insurance company. Your claim that people will be slaves to the government is pure speculation and IMHO is an exaggeration. What Medicare for All will look like, is completely undefined. At this point in time, it is a concept to move everyone with primary private health insurance to the existing Medicare system or some similar plan at some undefined date.

Medicare for All will most probably not be Medicare as we known and it will not it be for all. I believe the most likely outcome will be the gradual lowering of the Medicare age requirement in order to remove older adults from private insurance. It could also include people that have very expensive lifetime treatments such End Stage Renal failure which Medicare now pays 80% of the cost regardless of age. If this is where Medicare for All ends up, it will drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

The best is a matter of opinion. For most people the best doctors are those they like and that can be for number of reasons. Since I have Medicare, I can go to most any healthcare facility in the area or anywhere in the country. However, like most people I choose my healthcare providers because they are conveniently located. I don't need the finest eye surgeon in the county for my cataract surgery. I don't need the top GI doctor to do a colonoscopy. What I do need is doctors that I can get an appoint within a reasonable period of time, that have instant access to all my records from all my doctors, and are located within a short drive from home. Just because everyone would be able to go to most any doctor or hospital in the country does not mean they will do so. What it would mean is that when people travel outside of their home area they could go to doctors or hospitals through out the country and not pay any more than at home. Unlike private insurance, Medicare beneficiaries, are not limited by a network of doctors chosen by an insurance company to maximize profits.

 

[Flopper]

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

Concentrated capital, same as it ever was. You're only going to your shitty little clinic anyway, like you said.

My "clinic" is one of the top hospitals in the country. It draws people from all around the world. Since it is here, everybody would love to be treated there. If we were Medicare for all, what would concentrated capital have to do with it?

Point is, it would have to become political. Somebody or some people would have to make those decisions.

I doubt that. First, there is no clinic or hospital that is best for everything. Second, when people are sick, the last thing they want to do is leave home. Third, it can be costly for a very sick person to travel plus the cost of bringing the family. Insurance is not the only issue here.

 

[skookerasbil]

Unicorn chasing is a more realistic endeavor than single payer for all. Very little support in this country. Sanders supporters tell you differently but #'s wise they are fringe. So nothing to discuss here.

 

[Dragonlady]

No, government healthcare is when government delivers the healthcare. Under Medicare for All, goverment replaces the insurance company. Your claim that people will be slaves to the government is pure speculation and IMHO is an exaggeration. What Medicare for All will look like, is completely undefined. At this point in time, it is a concept to move everyone with primary private health insurance to the existing Medicare system or some similar plan at some undefined date.

Medicare for All will most probably not be Medicare as we known and it will not it be for all. I believe the most likely outcome will be the gradual lowering of the Medicare age requirement in order to remove older adults from private insurance. It could also include people that have very expensive lifetime treatments such End Stage Renal failure which Medicare now pays 80% of the cost regardless of age. If this is where Medicare for All ends up, it will drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

First come, first serve. You asked this question before. I can walk into any hospital in Ontario and ask to be served, and if I'm waiting for surgery and another hospital has openings, I can go to that hospital for the surgery. But I'm always going to pick a hospital near my home or family.

When I lived in Toronto, I had my choice of any hospital in the downtown core I wanted to go to. I always picked Toronto General because I liked it best. Turns out, it's the best hospital in Canada. Two out of the four top hospitals in Canada were the one's I chose to go to. In an ambulance, I was asked which hospital I wanted to go to, and was give three choices (the three closest), I chose Sunnbrook. It's No. 4 in Canada.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

Concentrated capital, same as it ever was. You're only going to your shitty little clinic anyway, like you said.

My "clinic" is one of the top hospitals in the country. It draws people from all around the world. Since it is here, everybody would love to be treated there. If we were Medicare for all, what would concentrated capital have to do with it?

Point is, it would have to become political. Somebody or some people would have to make those decisions.

People from all over the country are going to fly to Ohio to go to this Clinic. I doubt that. First, there is no clinic or hospital that is best for everything. Second, when people are sick, the last thing they want to do is leave home. Third, it can be costly for a very sick person to travel plus the cost of family. Insurance is not the only issue here.

Thanks for that information. I will have to tell my sister that was a supervisor of a major department when it came to outside patients and visitors. You see, she told me of some incredible stories.

I'll have to tell her that foreign security agencies didn't have her checked out. I'll have to tell her that foreign security didn't follow her everywhere she went and watched over he shoulder with everything she did. I'll have to tell her she was FOS when she explained how VIP's rented out an entire hospital floor, and the elevators were programed to bypass that floor unless you had an elevator key. I'll have to tell her that she never had to do the menial work her underlings always did for these VIP's because they didn't trust them.

For security reasons, these patients were never reported to the media, even after they went back home. One time while I was leaving, a posse with their foreign media interviewing (whoever) stopped me on the causeway from passing the group so I could get to parking lot. I could only move as fast as the guy pushing the wheelchair, which was not very fast at all.

So why would these international leaders leave their country and get treated at the Cleveland Clinic? Because they are the best at everything, and their country with socialized medical care can't come close to our technology and talent in the medical field.

 

[Flopper]

Unicorn chasing is a more realistic endeavor than single payer for all. Very little support in this country. Sanders supporters tell you differently but #'s wise they are fringe. So nothing to discuss here.

I like the idea of Medicare for All but I don't think the country is ready for it. If Sanders were elected, which I doubt and he managed to get a bill in congress, it would either be shit caned or changed in such way that it would not even resemble what Sander's proposed. Obama had to deal with the insurance companies because he would be regulating them. The insurance companies would put up a heck of a lot bigger fight over Medicare for All because it would put them out of business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.

Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.

My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.

Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

First come, first serve. You asked this question before. I can walk into any hospital in Ontario and ask to be served, and if I'm waiting for surgery and another hospital has openings, I can go to that hospital for the surgery. But I'm always going to pick a hospital near my home or family.

When I lived in Toronto, I had my choice of any hospital in the downtown core I wanted to go to. I always picked Toronto General because I liked it best. Turns out, it's the best hospital in Canada. Two out of the four top hospitals in Canada were the one's I chose to go to. In an ambulance, I was asked which hospital I wanted to go to, and was give three choices (the three closest), I chose Sunnbrook. It's No. 4 in Canada.

First come--first serve doesn't always work with people here. I don't want to have to take a number. I want to get treated by X in X facility when services are needed. Why is it out of all the elderly people I've spoken with from Canada, your experiences are the exact opposite?

 

[Flopper]

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

First come, first serve. You asked this question before. I can walk into any hospital in Ontario and ask to be served, and if I'm waiting for surgery and another hospital has openings, I can go to that hospital for the surgery. But I'm always going to pick a hospital near my home or family.

When I lived in Toronto, I had my choice of any hospital in the downtown core I wanted to go to. I always picked Toronto General because I liked it best. Turns out, it's the best hospital in Canada. Two out of the four top hospitals in Canada were the one's I chose to go to. In an ambulance, I was asked which hospital I wanted to go to, and was give three choices (the three closest), I chose Sunnbrook. It's No. 4 in Canada.

First come--first serve doesn't always work with people here. I don't want to have to take a number. I want to get treated by X in X facility when services are needed. Why is it out of all the elderly people I've spoken with from Canada, your experiences are the exact opposite?

There is plenty of healthcare to go around. Our healthcare system has the capability of supporting tens of millions more people. Hospital occupancy rate is only about about 65%, one of the lowest in the world. Being able to check into a hospital with as little wait as a hotel or see doctors the day you call is not really good. It's wasteful and inefficient and therefore costly.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Unicorn chasing is a more realistic endeavor than single payer for all. Very little support in this country. Sanders supporters tell you differently but #'s wise they are fringe. So nothing to discuss here.

Every other advanced post-industrial nation on the planet can, has, and enjoys better healthcare outcomes, life expectancies, and with less waste and experience for society.

Settle. The american way.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.

Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

First come, first serve. You asked this question before. I can walk into any hospital in Ontario and ask to be served, and if I'm waiting for surgery and another hospital has openings, I can go to that hospital for the surgery. But I'm always going to pick a hospital near my home or family.

When I lived in Toronto, I had my choice of any hospital in the downtown core I wanted to go to. I always picked Toronto General because I liked it best. Turns out, it's the best hospital in Canada. Two out of the four top hospitals in Canada were the one's I chose to go to. In an ambulance, I was asked which hospital I wanted to go to, and was give three choices (the three closest), I chose Sunnbrook. It's No. 4 in Canada.

First come--first serve doesn't always work with people here. I don't want to have to take a number. I want to get treated by X in X facility when services are needed. Why is it out of all the elderly people I've spoken with from Canada, your experiences are the exact opposite?

So basically you're a whiny selfish prick. Yeah, you won't like everyone one being equal to you. Maybe that's your issue with Medicare now Ray.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I have had medicare for nearly 15 years. I have never had to file a claim, since they were always filed by the healthcare provider. I have never been any medical facility operated by the government. I have never had to change doctors. I have never had a claim denied that was for a valid charge. I have never had to appeal anything. I have never had to speak to a Medicare person. Since I have a Medicare supplement, I have never received a medical bill except for eye exams and dental work. I've never been told by a healthcare provider that they don't accept Medicare. I have never needed a referral. I have never been told by a doctor that a procedure I needed was not covered. During the 5 years we lived in an RV and traveled the country, I used Medicare in at least a dozens states across the country with no problems. IMHO, Medicare coverage should be available to everyone. It is far better than any health insurance, I have ever had.

Lastly, I have been in the hospital 5 times in the last 15 years, had two major surgeries, routinely see 4 doctors now, and my total medical bills during that time has got to exceed half million dollars. Exactly how is having Medicare coverage making me a slave to government?

You are not as of yet because they don't have a monopoly yet. If they takeover healthcare for the entire country, they will, because insurance companies that specialize in health insurance will disappear, and that will give the government a monopoly.

Afterwords, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives. They can say you must weight X amount, or you will not get treated for anything. Smoker? Drink alcohol? Ride a motorcycle? Eat fast food???

Look at what Mooochelle tried to do in public schools. Look at Bloomberg and his idiotic thought of soda cups. Look at DumBama forcing restaurants to list calorie count on every item they sell.

Democrats are control freaks. Always were, and always will be.

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

You're a funny guy ray. Corporations are so anti monopoly.

The payer is single dumbass.

WTF do you mean the payer is single? Medicare for all is government healthcare. If that's what everybody has to use, then they make the calls.

You're an idiot Ray, Jesus. Kept my doctor and all when I shifted over.

Turns out I called for an appt yesterday, got in the next day, renowned major metropolitan downtown research medical center hospital.

Maybe the sky is falling elsewhere.

You can keep your doctor and hospital if you can afford it. Commie Care only offers one insurance company for my clinic that I've been going to all of my life. They wanted a third of my net pay, and it didn't cover anything. 7K out of pocket, 7K deductible, no prescription coverage, no dental, a $50.00 doctor office copay. It was only good if you got hit by a bus.

You must be in the lower income bracket and get a sizable subsidy. They didn't give me shit. I have to pay over $200.00 a month just for my prescriptions and test equipment. HTF can I afford that and pay a third of what I make to a plan that doesn't do me any good?

Did you overlook this response Ray? Did you wish go compare Medicare converges again? No? Your special little clinic blah blah blah?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

Concentrated capital, same as it ever was. You're only going to your shitty little clinic anyway, like you said.

My "clinic" is one of the top hospitals in the country. It draws people from all around the world. Since it is here, everybody would love to be treated there. If we were Medicare for all, what would concentrated capital have to do with it?

Point is, it would have to become political. Somebody or some people would have to make those decisions.

People from all over the country are going to fly to Ohio to go to this Clinic. I doubt that. First, there is no clinic or hospital that is best for everything. Second, when people are sick, the last thing they want to do is leave home. Third, it can be costly for a very sick person to travel plus the cost of family. Insurance is not the only issue here.

Thanks for that information. I will have to tell my sister that was a supervisor of a major department when it came to outside patients and visitors. You see, she told me of some incredible stories.

I'll have to tell her that foreign security agencies didn't have her checked out. I'll have to tell her that foreign security didn't follow her everywhere she went and watched over he shoulder with everything she did. I'll have to tell her she was FOS when she explained how VIP's rented out an entire hospital floor, and the elevators were programed to bypass that floor unless you had an elevator key. I'll have to tell her that she never had to do the menial work her underlings always did for these VIP's because they didn't trust them.

For security reasons, these patients were never reported to the media, even after they went back home. One time while I was leaving, a posse with their foreign media interviewing (whoever) stopped me on the causeway from passing the group so I could get to parking lot. I could only move as fast as the guy pushing the wheelchair, which was not very fast at all.

So why would these international leaders leave their country and get treated at the Cleveland Clinic? Because they are the best at everything, and their country with socialized medical care can't come close to our technology and talent in the medical field.

I love anecdotes.

 

[skookerasbil]

Unicorn chasing is a more realistic endeavor than single payer for all. Very little support in this country. Sanders supporters tell you differently but #'s wise they are fringe. So nothing to discuss here.

I like the idea of Medicare for All but I don't think the country is ready for it. If Sanders were elected, which I doubt and he managed to get a bill in congress, it would either be shit caned or changed in such way that it would not even resemble what Sander's proposed. Obama had to deal with the insurance companies because he would be regulating them. The insurance companies would put up a heck of a lot bigger fight over Medicare for All because it would put them out of business.

Yep....single payer is coming sorry to say and it will be an unmitigated disaster. Most people will hate it but it will be too late.

But we are years away from that politically. Only the intellectual cripples think single payer is viable with the voting public now.....a distinct minority.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Unicorn chasing is a more realistic endeavor than single payer for all. Very little support in this country. Sanders supporters tell you differently but #'s wise they are fringe. So nothing to discuss here.

I like the idea of Medicare for All but I don't think the country is ready for it. If Sanders were elected, which I doubt and he managed to get a bill in congress, it would either be shit caned or changed in such way that it would not even resemble what Sander's proposed. Obama had to deal with the insurance companies because he would be regulating them. The insurance companies would put up a heck of a lot bigger fight over Medicare for All because it would put them out of business.

Yep....single payer is coming sorry to say and it will be an unmitigated disaster. Most people will hate it but it will be too late.

But we are years away from that politically. Only the intellectual cripples think single payer is viable with the voting public now.....a distinct minority.

Folks on Medicare now don't hate it at all. Only America, of all advanced post-industrial nations, is too crippled both intellectually and reflexively to move into the 21st century, so we pay more than anyone for shitter healthcare outcomes. A little due diligence vaporizes sloganeering.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.

If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

That goes back to my earlier question: if we all had this Medicare for all, we would all want the best doctors and hospitals. Since that can't be done, who would make the decision on who goes where?

First come, first serve. You asked this question before. I can walk into any hospital in Ontario and ask to be served, and if I'm waiting for surgery and another hospital has openings, I can go to that hospital for the surgery. But I'm always going to pick a hospital near my home or family.

When I lived in Toronto, I had my choice of any hospital in the downtown core I wanted to go to. I always picked Toronto General because I liked it best. Turns out, it's the best hospital in Canada. Two out of the four top hospitals in Canada were the one's I chose to go to. In an ambulance, I was asked which hospital I wanted to go to, and was give three choices (the three closest), I chose Sunnbrook. It's No. 4 in Canada.

First come--first serve doesn't always work with people here. I don't want to have to take a number. I want to get treated by X in X facility when services are needed. Why is it out of all the elderly people I've spoken with from Canada, your experiences are the exact opposite?

So basically you're a whiny selfish prick. Yeah, you won't like everyone one being equal to you. Maybe that's your issue with Medicare now Ray.

My only issue with Medicare is the program is partly responsible for individual and group insurance being so expensive. Yes, I like the idea I can go where I want for care. I don't like the idea of government telling me where I can go, because like anything else, Democrats politicize everything.