What Would You Think of a Healthcare Plan That Would...

[Flopper]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

Ahh... the boiling frog strategy. Good one.

Your plan sounds like an insurance exec's wet dream.

Much like ACA, the overarching goal here is to funnel as much money as possible to the insurance industry. But rather than mess around trying to force people to buy insurance, the government will just buy it on their behalf and tax them for it. This is called "Medicare". The insurance companies get our money, either way.

I don't see how adding more people to Medicare is going to funnel more money to insurance companies. It's going reduce the risk of insuring people and that's going to bring premiums down. State laws require that premiums be calculated based actuarial data; that is premiums must be related to risks. If risks goes down, so must premiums.

 

[Flopper]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

Well when you figure out a plan to remove government from healthcare please share it with us.

 

[progressive hunter]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

Well when figure out a plan to remove government from healthcare please share it.

simple apply the constitution,,,
all we have to do it get rid of democrats and republicans,,,

I know people are just a bunch of worthless cowards and depend on the government way to much,,,

but that doesnt mean I wont get in their face and tell them to get the **** out of my life,,,,

 

[dblack]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

Ahh... the boiling frog strategy. Good one.

Your plan sounds like an insurance exec's wet dream.

Much like ACA, the overarching goal here is to funnel as much money as possible to the insurance industry. But rather than mess around trying to force people to buy insurance, the government will just buy it on their behalf and tax them for it. This is called "Medicare". The insurance companies get our money, either way.

I don't see how adding more people to Medicare is going to funnel more money to insurance companies. It's going reduce the risk of insuring people and that's going to bring premiums down. State laws require that premiums be calculated based actuarial data; that is premiums must be related to risks. If risks goes down, so must premiums.

The risk doesn't go away. It's transferred to government. And back to taxpayers. We trade lower insurance prices for higher taxes and less choice. And, again, the insurance companies get our money either way.

And after all that pointless cost-shifting, you've still done nothing about the core problem - ridiculously high health care prices. And further insulating health care consumers from the real costs of the health care they consume is likely to drive prices even higher.

 

[emilynghiem]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

Dear Flopper
One PROVEN way to lower the costs (ie without doing it artificially by government regulations)
is to set up the direct care concierge plans to cut out the high costs, profits, waste and administrative burdens of claims.
So this isn't just FORCING the prices down, but naturally reducing them
as the consequence of cutting out bureaucratic expense that otherwise muddles up health care services and jacks up the costs.

If you want to try proposing your plan to see if it is manageable,
I believe people deserve to see proof it works BEFORE choosing to participate.

I don't believe anyone can just impose plans through govt on the promise or assumption
it will work.

First show that the costs are reduced by making changes.
Then you can offer lower costs without imposing this through regulations that require people affected to consent to those changes.

 

[Flopper]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

 

[Flopper]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

Dear Flopper
One PROVEN way to lower the costs (ie without doing it artificially by government regulations)
is to set up the direct care concierge plans to cut out the high costs, profits, waste and administrative burdens of claims.
So this isn't just FORCING the prices down, but naturally reducing them
as the consequence of cutting out bureaucratic expense that otherwise muddles up health care services and jacks up the costs.

If you want to try proposing your plan to see if it is manageable,
I believe people deserve to see proof it works BEFORE choosing to participate.

I don't believe anyone can just impose plans through govt on the promise or assumption
it will work.

First show that the costs are reduced by making changes.
Then you can offer lower costs without imposing this through regulations that require people affected to consent to those changes.

My plan is completely voluntary. The only legislation required is to reduce the age requirement for Medicare gradually over about 10 years till it reaches 50. That's it. People who are eligible for Medicare will be free to get their insurance form their employer's or from Medicare. If they select their employer's insurance, they will sign over their medicare benefits to their employer insurance plan, the same as is done now. Their premiums will of course go down along with costs of the plan and thus premiums for other employees will decrease.

 

[Flopper]

People say get government out of healthcare, drop Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, let the free market determine healthcare costs. Well that sounds pretty good if you ignore the fact that half the population depends on these programs, many of which depend on them to stay alive or to continue to live normal lives. It is completely impractical to get from here to some plan that would mean no healthcare for millions of people. In other words, you have to work with what exist today and find a way of transition into something better.

I would suggest that we consider a plan that would fall short of Medicare for All and would cost a lot less.

The essence of the plan would be to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years every year stopping at age 50. The cost to government would a lot less than Medicare for All and it would have positive benefits for all which include.

Lowering the cost of health insurance for employees, employers and individuals. This would occur because the most costly people to insure would be covered by Medicare, not group or individual insurance. It would also reduce the cost to Medicaid for the same reason. The cost of insurance for young people would drastically reduce which would increase the number insured.

Unlike the ACA, implementation it would be very easy. For those employed that become eligible for Medicare and wished to remain on their employers insurance, they would just sign over their Medicare benefits to their employer as is done now. There would be no need to change the ACA. In fact, this change would be a minor legislative change to the Medicare law.

There are a number of other benefits of doing this. First since, it's a gradual implementation, funding sources can be applied as needed. No one would be forced to do anything. If the plan proved unworkable it could be stopped at any time.

Dear Flopper
One PROVEN way to lower the costs (ie without doing it artificially by government regulations)
is to set up the direct care concierge plans to cut out the high costs, profits, waste and administrative burdens of claims.
So this isn't just FORCING the prices down, but naturally reducing them
as the consequence of cutting out bureaucratic expense that otherwise muddles up health care services and jacks up the costs.

If you want to try proposing your plan to see if it is manageable,
I believe people deserve to see proof it works BEFORE choosing to participate.

I don't believe anyone can just impose plans through govt on the promise or assumption
it will work.

First show that the costs are reduced by making changes.
Then you can offer lower costs without imposing this through regulations that require people affected to consent to those changes.

Concierge plans, where the patient pays a medical group a fix fee for services exist today and they can be a good fit for some people who are pretty healthy and only need a primary care doctor. The reason why they work is the medical group has very limited risks because they do not include all care a person might need. Primary care doctors do not generate huge bills and thus the risks are limited as are fees.

To provide complete medical care the medical group would absorb the same risks as a health insurance company. A large scale version of a concierge plan would be an integrated managed care group such as Kaiser Permanente which is basically an HMO in which it's network includes only it's own healthcare facilities with all care delivered by it's employees.

I have was a member of Group Health in Washington, an integrated managed care group which is now part of Kaiser Permanent. Costs to the patient was probably lower than traditional insurance and separate healthcare providers but it was not cheap. The disadvantages to this type care is the patient has few choices. He goes to facilities owned by company, and is cared for by it's employees. It the patient leaves the coverage area, his coverage is very limited or non-existent accept for emergencies. Also, combining the functions of an insurance company and all the medical service providers can lead to conflicts of interest.

 

[Flopper]

Reduce the cost of health insurance for all workers, employers, and purchasers of individual insurance without reducing benefits

Increase the number insured

Give people more choices in healthcare coverage

And NO:
Government mandates

Change in quality of service

Change required in current insurance or doctors

Changes to the ACA

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

 

[beautress]

It's called the "free market"....The only thing that isn't being tried.

Before we adhere to another Democrat health care plan, the Democrats need to clean up their socialistic areas of where people do not have to work because they voted Democrats who promised them they didn't have to work, enjoy the weed, and behave. Here's the response they got for all that freebie stuff they pickpocketed out of taxpayers:

Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair if you think it'll help you smell better
In Pelosi territory!!!

 

[progressive hunter]

If it's not changing the ACA, then it has government mandates. So, given that your plan has at least one internal contradiction (there are others), it isn't viable.

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

 

[Flopper]

No, my plan adds no government mandates.

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.

 

[progressive hunter]

but there is still government involvement which is the real problem,,,

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.

as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,

 

[Flopper]

I don't believe it's realist to think that government can be removed from healthcare. Remove goverment and you would have millions of Americans with no way of paying for healthcare, both lifesaving and care that makes life worth living. Any suggestion of such would bring guarantees from the vast majority of law makers that they would never support it.

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.

as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,

Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.

 

[progressive hunter]

why does nobody remember the states have full authority to deal with the problem???

that is why the constitution was written the way it was,,,
the best government is that closest to the people,,,

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.

as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,

Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.

thats simple,,,just read it,,,

it very clearly says delegated powers not implied,,,

 

[Flopper]

How are states going to do a better job? Medicaid is a state managed program and it is certainly no example of efficiency. The best government may well be local government but that does not mean it will yield the best services. In many cases, you're just installing federal bureaucracy at the state and multiplying by 50.

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.

as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,

Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.

thats simple,,,just read it,,,

it very clearly says delegated powers not implied,,,

To delegate means to entrust, to assign powers regardless of whether those powers are expressly stated or implied. To delegate powers makes no judgement as to whether those powers are expressly stated or implied.

The founding fathers were well aware of the meaning of delegating powers versus delegating expressly stated powers. They were discussed in the Federalist papers. So it is no accident that the 10th amendment reads powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution

James Madison argued against using the wording expressly stated "as it would force Congress to do nothing in times of need or to work around the term, the former disarming Congress and the latter forcing Congress to disregard the Constitution." The congress agreed and the amendment submitted for ratification would include the term " delegated powers" and not expressed stated powers.

The Original Meaning of the Tenth Amendment and "Expressly" Delegated Power | Tenth Amendment Center

 

[progressive hunter]

its all a matter of perspective,,,

first we have to do whats legal,,,

then we can think/talk about whats best and efficient,,,,


and at the fed level its just not legal,,,

now if you want to talk about ignoring the law, please give me your address because I am sure you have something I can profit from in your house

If you're talking about the constitutionality of implied powers vs enumerated powers, that was settled in 1791, 1816, and thousands of times since then.

as per the 10th amendment no it hasnt,,,

Explain how the 10th amendment supports your contention.

thats simple,,,just read it,,,

it very clearly says delegated powers not implied,,,

To delegate means to entrust, to assign powers regardless of whether those powers are expressly stated or implied. To delegate powers makes no judgement as to whether those powers are expressly stated or implied.

So when the ten amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," it means means powers not assigned to the United States by the Constitution. It does not mean powers not expressly stated.

The founding fathers were well aware of the meaning of delegating powers versus delegating expressly stated powers. They were discussed in the Federalist papers. So it is no accident that the 10th amendment reads powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution

James Madison argued against using the wording expressly stated "as it would force Congress to do nothing in times of need or to work around the term, the former disarming Congress and the latter forcing Congress to disregard the Constitution." The congress agreed and the amendment submitted for ratification would include the term " delegated powers" and not expressed stated powers.

The Original Meaning of the Tenth Amendment and "Expressly" Delegated Power | Tenth Amendment Center

Delegated powers are government powersspecifically outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Thesepowers limit what Congress can do, and also definewhat Congress is in charge of regulating.Jul 31, 2016
Delegated Powers - Definition, Examples, of Congress and Government

https://legaldictionary.net/delegated-powers/

 

[initforme]

The free market alone won't do a thing. Leave it to corporations and nothing good gets done without big time oversight.

 

[dblack]

The free market alone won't do a thing. Leave it to corporations and nothing good gets done without big time oversight.

The free market isn't leaving "it" to corporations. It's leaving it to "we the people".