Implications of Medicare for All

Crystal said:

Why don’t you mind your own business? It’s not England’s business to interfere in American life. You lost that privilege a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Is it America's business to interfere in everyone else's lives, all over the world? Once America quits sticking her snout anywhere she feels serves her 'interests', I'll start minding my own business. Until that unlikely day you'll just have to suck it up. So, instead of your 'mind your own business' defensiveness, why don't you actually try constructing reasoned responses to posts?

daeler said:

My medical insurance for a family plan costs around 26k a year. My company pays for 80% of the plan.

Click to expand...

That amount is insane, but I assume you have a large family.

RealityNow said:

what people have to understand is the American Culture of "Enriching Doctors" is not something that is shared around the world. People should look at India, as many people travel to India for medical services.
If American Doctors get so haughty they want to quit because they can't 'enjoy the get rich quick" and having the patients kiss their butts.... It's not a problem, because there are many many many many Doctors that can and will come from India; {It is noteworthy that India provides the largest number of International Medical Graduates to the USA}



America spent too much time focused on "status grooming their youth"... to pursue Medicine and Law, as the "get rich path- play status games" and both professions have engaged acts of 'degradation of the ethic's of these professions, for the sake of "money". "We all know it" but at time flip flop and acquiesce ourselves to try and void out the truths that we know and many have had family members suffer because of such "status and greed grooming that has gone into making a "Avarice Agenda" (Extreme Greed) too important to themselves..

These Doctor's now get into their groups, and play games to fight against certain treatment programs, that don't fit their money stream main programming. They try and control the system to void out Holostic Methods for the things they are better suited for.

Most people go to the doctor, the doctors book their appointment books with 10-15 minutes slots, and then overbook that!!! They come in, look at you, ask a couple of question, get their digital unit and look at prescription options, stick their stethoscope on your back, on your chest and then grab your wrist and pretend to take your blood pressure, when the Nurse has already done that.
First they make you sit in the room for at least 10 minutes before they come in, to ensure you are desperate to see them to the point, by the time they come in they've elevated themselves in a situational framework, where the patient is fully submissive to the point of near worship like silence. Then... they get agitated if one tells them the related symptoms they are having!!! They check boxes on a checklist... then find a generic phrase as a quick escape comment to get from the room as quick as possible; and tell you to pick up the prescription at the desk and they will see in a matter of weeks.

Yet, they follow this generic script, but when you ask a question, they tell you"everyone is different"... but their treatment process is as if everyone is generic.

Click to expand...

In Britain NHS medics are paid by the state and the drive for self-enrichment just doesn't exist. A general practitioner can earn up to around £90,000, and hospital consultants considerably more. I don't know about private salaries but in any event many medics working in the private sector are seconded from the NHS so the level of care is no different from that in the public sector-just a lot more expensive. Yes you get a nice room and great food, but a hospital isn't a hotel and I want to get in and out asap without the peripheral fripperies which contribute nothing to my clinical care.

snakestretcher said:

In Britain NHS medics are paid by the state and the drive for self-enrichment just doesn't exist. A general practitioner can earn up to around £90,000, and hospital consultants considerably more. I don't know about private salaries but in any event many medics working in the private sector are seconded from the NHS so the level of care is no different from that in the public sector-just a lot more expensive. Yes you get a nice room and great food, but a hospital isn't a hotel and I want to get in and out asap without the peripheral fripperies which contribute nothing to my clinical care.

Click to expand...

Nationalized health care systems save money largely due to reduced payments to doctors among other factors such as lower administrative, pharmaceutical and medical equipment cost while maintaining positive health outcomes. Hence, the AMA opposes government sponsored health plans as they once opposed Medicare.

snakestretcher said:

In Britain NHS medics are paid by the state and the drive for self-enrichment just doesn't exist. A general practitioner can earn up to around £90,000, and hospital consultants considerably more. I don't know about private salaries but in any event many medics working in the private sector are seconded from the NHS so the level of care is no different from that in the public sector-just a lot more expensive. Yes you get a nice room and great food, but a hospital isn't a hotel and I want to get in and out asap without the peripheral fripperies which contribute nothing to my clinical care.

Click to expand...

Here is the US several years ago the state of West Virginia was suffering from a serious shortage of doctors because doctors were refusing to practice there due to high incidents of dummass medical malpractice lawsuits. Greedy lawyers were bringing frivolous cases before pliable juries and were getting huge damage awards, driving up medical costs and driving down the numbers of professional workers willing to put up with the out of control foolishness.

snakestretcher said:

Is it America's business to interfere in everyone else's lives, all over the world? Once America quits sticking her snout anywhere she feels serves her 'interests', I'll start minding my own business. Until that unlikely day you'll just have to suck it up. So, instead of your 'mind your own business' defensiveness, why don't you actually try constructing reasoned responses to posts?

Click to expand...

Just heard a report from your suck ass best health care in the world bull**** country. They misdiagnosed a woman with two small children. She was given a double mastectomy, went through chemo therapy. Jesus. Then they figured out she didn’t have breast cancer at all. No thanks. Take that bull**** a place it where the moon don’t shine.

Crystal said:

Just heard a report from your suck ass best health care in the world bull**** country. They misdiagnosed a woman with two small children. She was given a double mastectomy, went through chemo therapy. Jesus. Then they figured out she didn’t have breast cancer at all. No thanks. Take that bull**** a place it where the moon don’t shine.

Click to expand...

Yes, because that would never happen in America, right?

Crystal said:

Just heard a report from your suck ass best health care in the world bull**** country. They misdiagnosed a woman with two small children. She was given a double mastectomy, went through chemo therapy. Jesus. Then they figured out she didn’t have breast cancer at all. No thanks. Take that bull**** a place it where the moon don’t shine.

Click to expand...

1 in 20 American adults 'misdiagnosed in outpatient clinics each year'

What was that about "suck ass"? You're not very good at this, are you. You're a world class expert in infantile insults though, so I'll give you credit for that.

manofknowledge said:

When people discuss single-payer health care systems they hear about the massive increase in taxes, but those discussions never think through the real implications of single-payer. Implications include:

• Everyone has health insurance for life. No more changing plans because you changed jobs or your employer decides to change the plan.
• Employers are no longer concerned about providing health care at all. They are relieved of that cost and responsibility (unless the single payer plan requires them to pay into it).
• The cost of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA get rolled into paying for the single-payer system. States will no longer be required to spend on health care for the poor. All veterans will be covered instead of the percentage that are now covered. There is no transition for insurance at age 65.
• There will be a massive increase in the market for health care. Millions of jobs will be created. Admittedly many jobs with insurance companies will be lost but in general those folks will benefit from the increase in the health care market.
• Providers no longer have to make deals with dozens of insurance companies. They only need to deal with one payer vastly reducing overhead costs for them.
• People will be relieved of the cost of health care insurance, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles. Their cost will be shifted from insurance to some sort of tax system.
• Hospitals will reliably get paid.
• A person's state of health will be irrelevant to the cost to them.
• You can see any medical care provider you want. No more provider networks.
• No more out of pocket costs for health care. (depending on the single-payer plan)
• Overall health care costs will go down with reductions in administrative costs.
• The country's general health will be better lowering the annual cost to the system.

Estimates place the annual cost of health care in the US at $3.2 trillion.

Estimates for the cost of single-payer are about $3-4 trillion annually. We already spend the money needed, we just have to figure out how we want to move the flow of dollars from insurance companies to the single-payer system.

Click to expand...

Once you have that figured out, then you can start trying to figure out where to find the doctors to provide the care.....

manofknowledge said:

When people discuss single-payer health care systems they hear about the massive increase in taxes, but those discussions never think through the real implications of single-payer. Implications include:

• Everyone has health insurance for life. No more changing plans because you changed jobs or your employer decides to change the plan.
• Employers are no longer concerned about providing health care at all. They are relieved of that cost and responsibility (unless the single payer plan requires them to pay into it).
• The cost of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA get rolled into paying for the single-payer system. States will no longer be required to spend on health care for the poor. All veterans will be covered instead of the percentage that are now covered. There is no transition for insurance at age 65.
• There will be a massive increase in the market for health care. Millions of jobs will be created. Admittedly many jobs with insurance companies will be lost but in general those folks will benefit from the increase in the health care market.
• Providers no longer have to make deals with dozens of insurance companies. They only need to deal with one payer vastly reducing overhead costs for them.
• People will be relieved of the cost of health care insurance, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles. Their cost will be shifted from insurance to some sort of tax system.
• Hospitals will reliably get paid.
• A person's state of health will be irrelevant to the cost to them.
• You can see any medical care provider you want. No more provider networks.
• No more out of pocket costs for health care. (depending on the single-payer plan)
• Overall health care costs will go down with reductions in administrative costs.
• The country's general health will be better lowering the annual cost to the system.

Estimates place the annual cost of health care in the US at $3.2 trillion.

Estimates for the cost of single-payer are about $3-4 trillion annually. We already spend the money needed, we just have to figure out how we want to move the flow of dollars from insurance companies to the single-payer system.

Click to expand...

Pretty big gap between 3 & 4 trillion compared to 3.2 trillion. The high end is 25% more than we spend today. That being said the most important phrase in the above IMO is the last one. This proposal would be be a materially bigger transfer of wealth to corporations ever proposed. Thus people like Warren Buffett a big donor clamors for it. This would give corporations materially more $$$ than the last tax cut that has been called a giveaway to the wealthy. How to pay for single payor has been the reason we have not implemented it over the last several decades.

snakestretcher said:

1 in 20 American adults 'misdiagnosed in outpatient clinics each year'

What was that about "suck ass"? You're not very good at this, are you. You're a world class expert in infantile insults though, so I'll give you credit for that.

Click to expand...

I am very good at it!

marke said:

Here is the US several years ago the state of West Virginia was suffering from a serious shortage of doctors because doctors were refusing to practice there due to high incidents of dummass medical malpractice lawsuits. Greedy lawyers were bringing frivolous cases before pliable juries and were getting huge damage awards, driving up medical costs and driving down the numbers of professional workers willing to put up with the out of control foolishness.

Click to expand...

How can they be getting huge damage awards when West Virginia has caps on medical malpractice claims?

Crystal said:

Just heard a report from your suck ass best health care in the world bull**** country. They misdiagnosed a woman with two small children. She was given a double mastectomy, went through chemo therapy. Jesus. Then they figured out she didn’t have breast cancer at all. No thanks. Take that bull**** a place it where the moon don’t shine.

Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that these kinds of situations, and worse, don't happen everyday in this country?

Crystal said:

I am very good at it!

Click to expand...

Not very good with avoiding getting your crap thrown back at you though! Here's a tip; do some basic research before you accuse others of the same issues you have in your own country. It saves being embarrassed by foreigners who appear to know more about America than you!

So according to wiki the NHS is not all that damn healthy. 33,000 nurses leave because their pay is too low, demands too high and they cannot afford to live where they work. Sounds pretty suck ass to me.



National Health Service (England) - Wikipedia



In 2017, UK media reported that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) said that the NHS is "straining at the seams" with a "precarious" future.[6] Sources do not always make clear if they refer to the whole of the NHS or only to England.

manofknowledge said:

You're a bit mixed up. Medicare covers pre-existing conditions. Employer group insurance has always covered pre-existing conditions because the price of that insurance is based on the cost to cover the whole group. (healthy employees subsidize not healthy employees.)

On the individual market insurers did not cover pre-existing conditions or excluded them from coverage because they priced the policy based on the cost of covering the individual. Pre-existing conditions increased the cost of coverage based on the cost of the condition. Hence not healthy people could not afford to get coverage, were dropped from coverage or were rejected by the insurer.

The ACA changed that because ACA individual market policies are priced base on the cost of coverage in a geographical region. It's only affodable if healthy people buy insurance in that region to subsidize covering the cost of not healthy people. Otherwise the price of a policy goes up based on a group dominated by not healthy people. That is the reason for the minimum coverage requirement. Now that that is history the price on the exchanges will likely be pushed up by adverse selection unless something is done about it.

Click to expand...

Medicaid should've been legislated to cover the pre-existing conditions and not force everyone - not just seniors - onto the 'Medicare for all' piece of crap health care insurance role.

Condor060 said:

I support your right for you to have the healthcare you want. Isn't that a prevailing difference between Liberals and Conservatives? More Government vs less? As a veteran I can tell you I have seen this type of medical care first hand for the needs of less than 1% of the population. I can only speak to my own experience and I prefer to provide for my own medical needs.



I can't. I have never been included on any of those healthcare governments. We could go back and forth all day on internet sites trying to out do each other as you will find supporting documents for both, Right?

I see it as Liberals have this desire to try an guarantee a medical needs program for everyone. And thats a good thing. Who wouldn't be for that? I know I would be for it. But the reality is (from years of our collective experience) when you try and please everyone, things get bad. I honor your aptitude and desire to help provide for those of less fortune, I have just never seen it successfully done.

Click to expand...

“Isn't that a prevailing difference between Liberals and Conservatives? More Government vs less?”

The number one indicator of “more government” is whether the size of government increases or not, as measured by government outlays. Larger government outlays are more often the result of Republican administration vs. Democrat. If you want to call Dems Liberal and Reps Conservative, there’s your answer. If you want to say how involved the government gets in people’s lives, then I’d say that’s more a liberal thing whereas Cons prefer more private control. Government should get involved only when private involvement is not practicable. Hence, private health became not to serve Americans as a whole so the government passed legislation to guarantee coverage for tens of millions more people than was being had under private control. Cons prefer privatizing, such as of border detention centers where per person cost has skyrocketed over previous government run facilities.

“As a veteran I can tell you I have seen this type of medical care first hand for the needs of less than 1% of the population. I can only speak to my own experience and I prefer to provide for my own medical needs.”

I’m quite happy with my Medicare. That includes my doctors and various hospital experience.

“I can't. I have never been included on any of those healthcare governments. We could go back and forth all day on internet sites trying to out do each other as you will find supporting documents for both, Right?”

We can go back and forth on opinion, but not on evidence that better supports one side. The evidence shows that the majority of industrialized countries have some sort of national health plan that is considerably less expensive and with same or better outcomes than that of the US.

“I see it as Liberals have this desire to try an guarantee a medical needs program for everyone. And thats a good thing. Who wouldn't be for that? I know I would be for it. But the reality is (from years of our collective experience) when you try and please everyone, things get bad. I honor your aptitude and desire to help provide for those of less fortune, I have just never seen it successfully done.”

I have seen it done, as previously explained, in industrialized countries. Obamacare was a step forward in that direction. Medicare is a 100% example. And, its not just a matter of those of less fortune, but those less fortunate who are able to afford private insurance but get their coverage cancelled or limited by private insurers. The Republicans who want to repeal Obamacare but say they will keep non-refusal requirements are plain lying. That is how an insurer has greatest control and Reps prefer private control of everything though also prefer as much socialization of corp cost as can be but still with privatized profit.

BlueTex said:

How can they be getting huge damage awards when West Virginia has caps on medical malpractice claims?

Click to expand...

West Virginia passed legislation to cap malpractice damage awards in 2015 for good reasons, just like I said.

The new punitive damages statute will end the chances of runaway damage awards because application of the new strict standard should eliminate punitive claims in most cases.

West Virginia Establishes Punitive Damages Cap and Abolishes Joint and Several Liability | Sutter O'Connell Attorneys

manofknowledge said:

When people discuss single-payer health care systems they hear about the massive increase in taxes, but those discussions never think through the real implications of single-payer. Implications include:

Click to expand...

Short Answer: It's an admirable goal, but ultimately misguided and going to solve nothing. The Biden-Buttigieg-Klobuchar idea of having a public option would be much more pleasing and affordable.

Long Answer: There are mountains and mountains of problems with MFA (Medicare For All).

(1) Lets begin with the fact that it will cost at most 40 trillion dollars, according to Sanders' camp. Whenever somebody asks Sanders or Warren, the two biggest proponents of MFA among the Democratic hopefuls, how they are going for pay it, their answer often gets fuzzy and turns into an anti-Iraq War rant. Michael Moore on Bill Maher a few years ago, response was "Why don't we hire somebody to do the math for us". As in, they don't really know the true costs and simply want somebody to fudge the numbers for them. Sanders' home state of Vermont tried MFA, and the state ended up rejecting it because it would "cost too much money" and would "bankrupt the state".

(2) Why do we actually need MFA? We have medicare and medicaid for those who need it. We have the ACA. Ronald Reagan back in the 80s signed a law stating that hospitals cannot turn away patients due to lack of the ability to pay. MFA proponents are essentially asking us to burn down the house, instead of fixing the roof and pipes. If we install an MFA, we essentially will run into a wide range of problems, both expected and unexpected. In order words, it's passing the buck. Most people in our society agree that health-care is a right, and should be there for everybody, but this principle does not mean that primary health-care insurance should be run by the federal government.

(3) Most people with MFA insurance buy supplemental insurance. These would be provided by the market place or by companies in order to entice employment. So not only will people have to pay a much higher medicare tax, but they will be paying insurance premiums as well. On top of all that, most doctors offices will mostly likely be charging co-pays in order to prevent people from over using the hospitals and doctor's offices. And guess what? You will be taxed on those co-pays.

There's no guarantees that Americans will not have to pay out of pocket expenses. My mother (senior citizen) for example is on medicare as well as my disabled friend. Both have to pay out of pocket expenses for their doctors visits.

To me, the better/right direction would be adding a public option onto the ACA. That basically means is that people can get insurance from their employer or marketplace OR opt for a government plan, which can be either basic or complex. It all depends on your individual needs. Maybe it's just me or my fiscal conservative side, but people would prefer choices and a plan which will cost us MUCH less money.

Crystal said:

Just heard a report from your suck ass best health care in the world bull**** country. They misdiagnosed a woman with two small children. She was given a double mastectomy, went through chemo therapy. Jesus. Then they figured out she didn’t have breast cancer at all. No thanks. Take that bull**** a place it where the moon don’t shine.

Click to expand...

We have as much wrongful acts conducted in the American Medical Profession, so cherry picking that incident does not diminish the heath care in foreign nations.

American's need to get over the delusion that 'we do everything better", because FACT IS... WE DON'T!!!! Continuing to believe that delusion is why and how the wealthy and the wealthy systems can and do continue to fleece the people.

We need to get off the high horse and learn how to learn from and with others.

America has this attitude at Cuba... but you may want to learn about it's Medical System
Cuba has historically – both before and during Communist rule – performed better than other countries in the region on infant mortality and life expectancy.[4] Experts say that official statistics by the Castro regime should be treated skeptically.[4][5] In 2016, the World Health Organisation reported the average life expectancy at birth for Cubans as being 77 years for males and 81 for females, which is higher than that of the United States.

Click to expand...

manofknowledge said:

When people discuss single-payer health care systems they hear about the massive increase in taxes, but those discussions never think through the real implications of single-payer. Implications include:

• Everyone has health insurance for life. No more changing plans because you changed jobs or your employer decides to change the plan.
• Employers are no longer concerned about providing health care at all. They are relieved of that cost and responsibility (unless the single payer plan requires them to pay into it).
• The cost of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA get rolled into paying for the single-payer system. States will no longer be required to spend on health care for the poor. All veterans will be covered instead of the percentage that are now covered. There is no transition for insurance at age 65.
• There will be a massive increase in the market for health care. Millions of jobs will be created. Admittedly many jobs with insurance companies will be lost but in general those folks will benefit from the increase in the health care market.
• Providers no longer have to make deals with dozens of insurance companies. They only need to deal with one payer vastly reducing overhead costs for them.
• People will be relieved of the cost of health care insurance, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles. Their cost will be shifted from insurance to some sort of tax system.
• Hospitals will reliably get paid.
• A person's state of health will be irrelevant to the cost to them.
• You can see any medical care provider you want. No more provider networks.
• No more out of pocket costs for health care. (depending on the single-payer plan)
• Overall health care costs will go down with reductions in administrative costs.
• The country's general health will be better lowering the annual cost to the system.

Estimates place the annual cost of health care in the US at $3.2 trillion.

Estimates for the cost of single-payer are about $3-4 trillion annually. We already spend the money needed, we just have to figure out how we want to move the flow of dollars from insurance companies to the single-payer system.

Click to expand...

These are all good, and varying degrees of possibly true under M4A. In very broad strikes I'd say the upsides and downsides are:


Whether the pros can be accomplished without some or all of the cons (which may mean something other than M4A) is a question to explore. Along with many other questions, some of which were raised by MrWonka early on in this thread.

Crystal said:

No. As I have pointed out! You wish to give freely to people who haven’t paid a nickel into the system. How is that fair to people who paid 30 years before drawing a dime?

Click to expand...

Current Medicare is not free. It only covers about 70% or the cost and Part B includes a premium. It only applies to people over 65 who qualify for Social Security. Anyone who has worked has paid into the system whether or not they made enough money to pay an income tax. Whether or not they paid into the system the uninsured are a burden everyone else has to carry except for the ones who die slowly without any medical support. Most of the time eventually those people end up in an ER, often when it is too late to save them. Yet we still spend thousands of dollars trying to save them because that is the law.

iguanaman said:

Right because Medicare is such new program. :lol:

Click to expand...

No one knows how it will work because it is not a law yet. There are bills in Congress but all of them are incomplete.

washunut said:

Pretty big gap between 3 & 4 trillion compared to 3.2 trillion. The high end is 25% more than we spend today. That being said the most important phrase in the above IMO is the last one. This proposal would be be a materially bigger transfer of wealth to corporations ever proposed. Thus people like Warren Buffett a big donor clamors for it. This would give corporations materially more $$$ than the last tax cut that has been called a giveaway to the wealthy. How to pay for single payor has been the reason we have not implemented it over the last several decades.

Click to expand...

The reason we have not passed universal health care has nothing to do with cost. It's the political ideaology that if people cannot afford it they deserve to go without it.

manofknowledge said:

The reason we have not passed universal health care has nothing to do with cost. It's the political ideaology that if people cannot afford it they deserve to go without it.

Click to expand...

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.