• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Support Replacing PPACA with Medicare for All?

Would You Support Replacing PPACA with Medicare for All?


  • Total voters
    43

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
With this proposal Medicare would be supported by the payroll tax as it is today and premiums paid to the Federal Government. Individual states could opt-out from the Federal System as long as they offer a single-payer system. States that opted out of the Federal system would get the moneys from the payroll tax paid to the federal system.
 
With this proposal Medicare would be supported by the payroll tax as it is today and premiums paid to the Federal Government. Individual states could opt-out from the Federal System as long as they offer a single-payer system. States that opted out of the Federal system would get the moneys from the payroll tax paid to the federal system.

I voted yes. I'd amend it to "Yes, I think so," if I could.

Since I don't understand what the full ramifications might be, I could change my mind in a heartbeat if others more knowledgeable had good reasons for it not working.

Seems to me that the infrastructure was already in place . . . no pre-existing conditions; supplements sold outside of the government model. I'm not sure about their reimbursement rates, though. Most doctors/hospitals accept Medicare because old people spend a lot more on healthcare than younger ones. So lower reimbursements may amount to a "quantity discount". *shrug*
 
Absolutely, yes.

I would also point out that a great many other liberals feel the same way.

That's why poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans don't like Obamacare, but are in favor of health insurance reform.
 
Medicare/aid is the largest source of fraud in US history.
 
Do me a favor, break out your federal budget and look at Medicare revenue and Medicare expenditures. It's not to late to change your vote.


I voted yes. I'd amend it to "Yes, I think so," if I could.

Since I don't understand what the full ramifications might be, I could change my mind in a heartbeat if others more knowledgeable had good reasons for it not working.

Seems to me that the infrastructure was already in place . . . no pre-existing conditions; supplements sold outside of the government model. I'm not sure about their reimbursement rates, though. Most doctors/hospitals accept Medicare because old people spend a lot more on healthcare than younger ones. So lower reimbursements may amount to a "quantity discount". *shrug*
 
Do me a favor, break out your federal budget and look at Medicare revenue and Medicare expenditures. It's not to late to change your vote.

Yeah, well, there's that. :lol:

I know . . . the model includes huge HUGE deficits. That'd have to be fixed. ;)
 
The ratio of expenditures to revenues would be much lower for younger beneficiaries. You can't really compare the cost of providing health coverage to a 75 year old with a history of heart disease to providing coverage to a 30 year old.
 
I think the government should be providing full healthcare to children/the disabled (people that usually cannot help themselves) that need it...and everyone else on an emergency basis only (including seniors after a gradual Medicare reduction over the next 30+ years).

If able-bodied adults want full coverage they can earn it.

And drastically reduce medical insurance regulations to encourage free enterprise competition that will lower costs.
 
With this proposal Medicare would be supported by the payroll tax as it is today and premiums paid to the Federal Government. Individual states could opt-out from the Federal System as long as they offer a single-payer system. States that opted out of the Federal system would get the moneys from the payroll tax paid to the federal system.
I voted yes, but as the question was simplistic I consider my vote to be simplistic as well. I favor this idea, even though it goes against what I would normally believe, but I would have to see details of the plan. I wouldn't support just any proposal put forth.
 
Absolutely, yes.

I would also point out that a great many other liberals feel the same way.

That's why poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans don't like Obamacare, but are in favor of health insurance reform.

There has never been any question about this. I don't know about Medicare as a solution for all.
 
With this proposal Medicare would be supported by the payroll tax as it is today and premiums paid to the Federal Government. Individual states could opt-out from the Federal System as long as they offer a single-payer system. States that opted out of the Federal system would get the moneys from the payroll tax paid to the federal system.

Am I missing something? Where are the private insurers in this senario?
 
Am I missing something? Where are the private insurers in this senario?

I would envision something along the lines of Medicare as a primary insurance, but with the ability to purchase supplemental plans via private insurers. The supplemental coverage paying an additional percentage of covered services and prescriptions.

To clarify, I see this as a 'If I have to' for the basis of discussion, rather then my preferred scenario for health care reform.
 
I would envision something along the lines of Medicare as a primary insurance, but with the ability to purchase supplemental plans via private insurers. The supplemental coverage paying an additional percentage of covered services and prescriptions.

To clarify, I see this as a 'If I have to' for the basis of discussion, rather then my preferred scenario for health care reform.

1] i doubt private insurers would settle for that option.

2] to keep a private supplemental insurance is not fixing that problem with medicare or ACA.

I vote no to this option.
 
1] i doubt private insurers would settle for that option.

2] to keep a private supplemental insurance is not fixing that problem with medicare or ACA.

I vote no to this option.

As I said, it's not my preferred option for healthcare reform either, but if this, as the ACA was, is done unto us, and in light of the fact that many private insurers already offer supplemental policies for Medicare, to expand the program would be fairly efficient.

Providing Medicare on an expanded basis (to include more of the low/no income group) and release the populace from the mandated insurance and return to the free market of private or employer based insurance with a few added laws (pre-existing coverage at a higher premium, no drop unless premium isn't paid), then address the actual driving forces of health care costs a step at a time is my preferred scenario.
 
As I said, it's not my preferred option for healthcare reform either, but if this, as the ACA was, is done unto us, and in light of the fact that many private insurers already offer supplemental policies for Medicare, to expand the program would be fairly efficient.

Providing Medicare on an expanded basis (to include more of the low/no income group) and release the populace from the mandated insurance and return to the free market of private or employer based insurance with a few added laws (pre-existing coverage at a higher premium, no drop unless premium isn't paid), then address the actual driving forces of health care costs a step at a time is my preferred scenario.

What is yours is yours.
 
With this proposal Medicare would be supported by the payroll tax as it is today and premiums paid to the Federal Government. Individual states could opt-out from the Federal System as long as they offer a single-payer system. States that opted out of the Federal system would get the moneys from the payroll tax paid to the federal system.

I think it would be better than the ACA, which in my opinion is a totally flawed law. But I think the cap on the payroll tax needs to be high, like somewhere around 500,000 and everyone pays it. while you're at it, raise the SS cap to 500,000 also. The ACA is a half way measure that according to gallup and rasmussen is hurting twice as many people as it is helping, I would be open to this.
 
At first glance, it looks like something for me to support.
 
What those who support this would basically have to argue is to pay less for private health insurance premiums (something 70% of society was ok with before obamacare) and have that money shifted to the government for medicare. There would likely have to be a mandate to all medical professionals to take medicare (some don't now - don't know if that is 1%, 10% or ??). In essence its a complete government take over of the private insurance system - which you know as well as I and everyone else - that won't impact the truly elites and provisions for their exemptions will be allowed. A one system fits all for America is opposite of our system of capitalism where by the successful are rewarded and the poor are taken care of - taking the success from those who earned it and sharing it with the poor to the extreme.


Yeah, well, there's that. :lol:

I know . . . the model includes huge HUGE deficits. That'd have to be fixed. ;)
 
Am I missing something? Where are the private insurers in this senario?

In Chapter 7, would be my guess.

Who really cares?

Understand that I'm not necessarily saying that I'm in favor of the OP proposal, but I fail to see how or why the fate of private insurers would have any impact on it.

Private enterprise functions, generally speaking, by the law of supply and demand.

If there's no longer a demand for private healthcare insurance, because what demand there is is being met by public insurance, I suspect that the private supply would dry up.

We don't ask, "What about the private fire departments", or, "What about the private Departments of Defense", so why would we ask, "What about the private insurers"?
 
What those who support this would basically have to argue is to pay less for private health insurance premiums (something 70% of society was ok with before obamacare) and have that money shifted to the government for medicare. There would likely have to be a mandate to all medical professionals to take medicare (some don't now - don't know if that is 1%, 10% or ??). In essence its a complete government take over of the private insurance system - which you know as well as I and everyone else - that won't impact the truly elites and provisions for their exemptions will be allowed. A one system fits all for America is opposite of our system of capitalism where by the successful are rewarded and the poor are taken care of - taking the success from those who earned it and sharing it with the poor to the extreme.

Actually a UHC system would be very much in line with out motto which is freedom and equality for all. Surely you believe Americans should have equal treatment when they are sick?
 
In Chapter 7, would be my guess.

Who really cares?

Understand that I'm not necessarily saying that I'm in favor of the OP proposal, but I fail to see how or why the fate of private insurers would have any impact on it.

Private enterprise functions, generally speaking, by the law of supply and demand.

If there's no longer a demand for private healthcare insurance, because what demand there is is being met by public insurance, I suspect that the private supply would dry up.

We don't ask, "What about the private fire departments", or, "What about the private Departments of Defense", so why would we ask, "What about the private insurers"?

My point is who gets to tell a private company they are no longer needed..the Republicans?
 
Would You Support Replacing PPACA with Medicare for All?

absolutely.
 
My point is who gets to tell a private company they are no longer needed..the Republicans?

Well, I don't think anyone would have to tell them.

At least not formally.

Insurers, by the nature of the business and economies of scale, are necessarily BIG businesses.

The CEOs of these corporations would know what was going in to a proposed bill legislating this stuff before the ink was even dry on the page.

And I mean the page that the authors doodled out the broad strokes of the draft on before the thing even had a full compliment of sponsors or ever saw the floor.
 
No, I support replacing it with nothing and Medicare for none.
 
What those who support this would basically have to argue is to pay less for private health insurance premiums (something 70% of society was ok with before obamacare) and have that money shifted to the government for medicare. There would likely have to be a mandate to all medical professionals to take medicare (some don't now - don't know if that is 1%, 10% or ??). In essence its a complete government take over of the private insurance system - which you know as well as I and everyone else - that won't impact the truly elites and provisions for their exemptions will be allowed. A one system fits all for America is opposite of our system of capitalism where by the successful are rewarded and the poor are taken care of - taking the success from those who earned it and sharing it with the poor to the extreme.

I'm not sure the government would administer it. I could all be administered by private insurers, no? The way Medicare supplements are administered now. The money for supplements is not paid to the government. It's paid to privates and administered by them.

Frankly? I'm not sure that isn't the way Medicare is administered now . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom