• 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!

Implications of Medicare for All

rickc said:
Not really. It is because the insurance companies, big pharma and the HMO's have a huge lobbying machine. They don't want anyone messing with their gravy train. They have the political power to keep it.from happening. In America it is all about profits.
Click to expand...

The ACA increased profits for all health care related businesses, yet it was reviled by Republicans as a government takeover even though it was just an insurance regulatory scheme originally promoted by conservatives.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Medicare does have a appeals process, I'm told it often works in favor of the individual. If you were to change providers you would loose any credit you had accumulated toward your deductible.
Click to expand...

My wife has had several Medicare appeals. All have gone in her favor.
 
I am always astounded (but not surprised) at the level of ignorance/disingenuity that is exhibited by opponents of Medicare-like alternatives for universal coverage. They misrepresent both the existing system and the various proposals for transition. The simplest transition plan is the "public option". It was opposed by Republicans, and killed by Joe Lieberman, because it would, in the words of President Obama, "help improve quality and bring down costs." Can't have that, yanno.

Public employees at the State and national levels (Federal Employees Health Benefit System - FEHB) often have choice systems, similar to the ACA. They can choose any insurer who meets the basic requirements for coverage, but have different processes for coverage, such as deductibles. Prices can vary. This is also true for "Medicare Advantage" and "Medigap" policies/systems. Many are offered by HMOs. These plans and systems neatly put the lie to most opponents' scare tactics.
 
NWRatCon said:
I am always astounded (but not surprised) at the level of ignorance/disingenuity that is exhibited by opponents of Medicare-like alternatives for universal coverage. They misrepresent both the existing system and the various proposals for transition. The simplest transition plan is the "public option". It was opposed by Republicans, and killed by Joe Lieberman, because it would, in the words of President Obama, "help improve quality and bring down costs." Can't have that, yanno.

Public employees at the State and national levels (Federal Employees Health Benefit System - FEHB) often have choice systems, similar to the ACA. They can choose any insurer who meets the basic requirements for coverage, but have different processes for coverage, such as deductibles. Prices can vary. This is also true for "Medicare Advantage" and "Medigap" policies/systems. Many are offered by HMOs. These plans and systems neatly put the lie to most opponents' scare tactics.
Click to expand...


Of the public employees, Congressional members and staff must obtain insurance through the ACA. The taxpayers pay for 72% of the premiums charged Congress and staff under the Gold Plan. They can pay the remaining 28% with mostly pre-tax dollar deductions. They can also have certain medical procedures done without charges at military hospitals and withing Washington DC. There are a few other "loopholes", if you want to call them that.
 
Condor060 said:
Just one question. If Obama's plan that has skyrocketed in price can't be controlled, how are you going to control the price of this plan? How do you even know of the implementation cost. Who is going to control the pharmaceutical cost problems.
Click to expand...

Its time someone controlled the costs. Did you see the bill a guy received for dialysis? He had to go 70 miles for a place and it wasn't in his network. His insurance company still paid over $16,000. Medicare pays $235 a visit. The guy was billed over $500,000 for uncovered costs. Fortunately the pressure on the company caused them to waive the made up costs. The guy also met his $5,000 annual deductible. Utterly obscene!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm going to make a prediction: The next iteration of a health care law will provide a "public option" to buy into Medicare, or a Medicare-like system. It will be on the individual exchanges, and available to small businesses, initially. It will become quite popular. Insurance companies will respond by lowering costs to compete, but market aggressively. The "public option" will be quite popular, and within a decade will provide the majority of coverage in the United States. Most people don't realize that the government already pays the vast majority of health care coverage (two thirds).
In 2013, 64% of health spending was paid for by the government, and funded via programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration.
Click to expand...
(Wikipedia) So much for a "government takeover".
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm going to make a prediction: The next iteration of a health care law will provide a "public option" to buy into Medicare, or a Medicare-like system. It will be on the individual exchanges, and available to small businesses, initially. It will become quite popular. Insurance companies will respond by lowering costs to compete, but market aggressively. The "public option" will be quite popular, and within a decade will provide the majority of coverage in the United States. Most people don't realize that the government already pays the vast majority of health care coverage (two thirds).
(Wikipedia) So much for a "government takeover".
Click to expand...

It is simply the paranoid and selfish delusions of those unwilling to challenge their perspectives and view individuals as human beings in lieu of their ideological perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom