This Is Medicare For All

Moderate Right · Sep 1, 2019

jaeger19 said:
What wage increase? You think companies are simply going to go "hey.. soooo.. we decided to give you all a wage increase because now we don't pay directly for healthcare"?

Fat chance of that.. more than at all likely.. companies will simply pocket any extra profit.. as they have for the last decade.. since unions don't have the bargaining power they once had.

Secondly... if the taxes are on wages.. and its a shared wage tax for employer and employee... as I suspect it would be considering that's how medicare works now...

It means that any increase in wages the union gives... will have an according wage tax increase for them. So they would be less inclined to increase wages.

Heck.. the liberals have gone off the rocker on this one.

On one hand.. they truthfully can point out companies have managed to take HUGE profits without increasing wages for their workers.

then think on the other hand..that the minute that companies make more profit from not having to pay for employee healthcare.. that employers will magnanimously give raises to their employees.. rather than again..take the profit they have been taking.

What I am saying is that a part of union worker's wages are benefits, including health insurance. Let the employers drop health insurance because we now have MFA, and union workers have lost part of their salary. And, you're right. Employers aren't going to drop health insurance and suddenly start paying their union workers more. This makes unions very skeptical and worried about MFA. Bernie has just realized this and now is claiming that as union workers lose partial salary through the dropping of health insurance that he is going to require that money be recompensated in some fashion. But, two things:

1. Not only is Bernie's MFA program DOA but forcing employers to compensate their workers for lost health benefits due to MFA is DBA, dead before arrival.

2. Supposedly Bernie's plan is to tax businesses and the wealthy more to help pay for MFA so, in effect, while employers may save money on the health benefits that they used to provide but employers would already be paying increased money to help support MFA so, theoretically, if Bernie's plan would force employers to compensate employees for lost health benefits, they would actually be paying double by also paying additional taxes to help support MFA. As I said, Bernie's plan is just DBA. Not only would some Democrats not sign on but there would not be a Republican in sight and, as you said, union members would lose salary from the dropping of their health insurance and it would NOT be re-compensated.

independentusa · Sep 2, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Elderly couple found dead from murder-suicide after they couldn’t afford wife’s healthcare: ‘We will be in the front bedroom’

I thought Medicare for all was supposed to be the answer. Apparently it isn't all it is cracked up to be.

You apparently know nothing about the present Medicare program and the Medicare for all that is being suggested by some of the progressives running as Dems for president. Medicare pays about 80% of health care costs for seniors and most people buy supplemental insurance to cover most of the rest. There are also Medicare Advantage plans run through private insurance companies. With the advantage plans everything goes through the private insurance companies and you do not even use a Medicare card to get services. So even if they had Medicare, they might not have bought or could not afford a supplemental plan and could not afford the 20%, which with some diseases can run into the hundreds of thousands. The Medicare for all plan proposed by the Dems seems to cover all costs unlike the present Medicare plans.

nanackle · Sep 2, 2019

independentusa said:
You apparently know nothing about the present Medicare program and the Medicare for all that is being suggested by some of the progressives running as Dems for president. Medicare pays about 80% of health care costs for seniors and most people buy supplemental insurance to cover most of the rest. There are also Medicare Advantage plans run through private insurance companies. With the advantage plans everything goes through the private insurance companies and you do not even use a Medicare card to get services. So even if they had Medicare, they might not have bought or could not afford a supplemental plan and could not afford the 20%, which with some diseases can run into the hundreds of thousands. The Medicare for all plan proposed by the Dems seems to cover all costs unlike the present Medicare plans.

I get the feeling after reading through this entire thread that the original poster really does not understand medicare in the US or healthcare in general. I cannot blame someone for having a poor understanding of an issue, however I do not understand when someone is uninformed and chooses to remain that way through pages and pages of arguments.

ataraxia · Sep 2, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
I never claimed that Obamacare was socialism. However it is fascist style government takeover of the healthcare industry. Medicare for all would be socialist.

Well and the free market clearly doesn’t work. They don’t want to cover actual sick people.

So what constructive solution do you have?

snakestretcher · Sep 2, 2019

noonereal said:
I am also again Medicare for all.

Guess why? The program is so freaking good that I want it left totally alone.

I am not kidding.

It's better than sliced bread.

Your math is ridiculous, just an fyi

there is no such thing as health insurance for $1800 a year.

I paid approximately that a month ($1,500) for what was essentially catastrophic coverage

How much?! I paid less than that in a year for everything, including provision for unemployment benefit, maternity/paternity leave and a host of other benefits.

National Insurance rates and categories - GOV.UK

Moderate Right · Sep 2, 2019

independentusa said:
You apparently know nothing about the present Medicare program and the Medicare for all that is being suggested by some of the progressives running as Dems for president. Medicare pays about 80% of health care costs for seniors and most people buy supplemental insurance to cover most of the rest. There are also Medicare Advantage plans run through private insurance companies. With the advantage plans everything goes through the private insurance companies and you do not even use a Medicare card to get services. So even if they had Medicare, they might not have bought or could not afford a supplemental plan and could not afford the 20%, which with some diseases can run into the hundreds of thousands. The Medicare for all plan proposed by the Dems seems to cover all costs unlike the present Medicare plans.

You apparently have no idea of what I have been posting throughout this thread. I have repeatedly said that Medicare Part A sucks all by itself. It sucks so bad that if you want decent coverage you have to buy a barrage of supplements. The seniors in this OP most likely had Medicare and were financially overwhelmed so badly it resulted in a murder suicide. Medicare Part B pays 80% and it is a supplement you have to buy, along with the many other supplements. Democrats have been very vague about the details of MFA. In fact, several different candidates have different ideas of what MFA actually is. And, MFA is not even supported nor will be supported by many Democrats, even Democrats win the presidency. MFA is DOA, even if Bernie were to win. The presidency is not a dictatorship and yet lefty progressives think that if they win, all of their lefty ideas will actually happen. Obamacare just barely got through. MFA has no chance. It's just lefty fantasies run wild.

LetsGoBrandon · Sep 2, 2019

jaeger19 said:
that's not true at all.

It's absolutely true. Medicare for all would not just wreck private insurance, it would blow up the healthcare system in general. Even now many doctors are refusing to accept Medicare patients as the government reimburses them at a rate less then what it costs to treat them. Under a Medicare for all system, far fewer would seek to get into the medical field. And yes, without the supplemental plans even existing Medicare would die on the vine. Take myself for instance. without the supplemental plans, what incentive would I have to sign up for Medicare? Part A and Part B by themselves absolutely suck! I am better off just sticking with the VA. And many of those without the VA option are continuing to work past retirement age in order to keep employer provided health insurance rather then accepting the limitations of Medicare.

LetsGoBrandon · Sep 2, 2019

ataraxia said:
Well and the free market clearly doesn’t work.

The free market works when it is allowed to work as the founders intended.

They don’t want to cover actual sick people.

That is an absurd statement. If the free market did not want to cover sick people, companies like Blue Cross-Blue Shiedl, United Healthcare, etc would not exists, nor would Cancer clinics, private doctor practices, hospitals, etc. They would all get into another line of work or business.

So what constructive solution do you have?

It's really simple. Institute changes in laws to allow rather then prohibit the free market.

jaeger19 · Sep 3, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
It's absolutely true. Medicare for all would not just wreck private insurance, it would blow up the healthcare system in general. Even now many doctors are refusing to accept Medicare patients as the government reimburses them at a rate less then what it costs to treat them. Under a Medicare for all system, far fewer would seek to get into the medical field. And yes, without the supplemental plans even existing Medicare would die on the vine. Take myself for instance. without the supplemental plans, what incentive would I have to sign up for Medicare? Part A and Part B by themselves absolutely suck! I am better off just sticking with the VA. And many of those without the VA option are continuing to work past retirement age in order to keep employer provided health insurance rather then accepting the limitations of Medicare.

Oh please. there is so much wrong with that statement. Start with what incentive plan would you have to sign up for Medicare? How about the fact that medicare part A covers 100% of your hospital stay, rehab for 20 days, home health etc. And it doesn't cost you anything if you worked enough and put into medicare. Its deductible is among the lowest there is. Then there is medicare part B that has a premium of 135 dollars on average (try buying a plan for that).. and it pays 80% of the costs of your outpatient services. Medicare part D cost 33 dollars. and it covers you medications.

There is no better deal out there in the private market that BEATS medicare… so stop telling lies about how medicare Sucks. No way. Heck.. you pointed out that your mother was paying 350 or something like that for a plan that ONLY COVERS 20%. !!!!!..

Talk about blowing up your own argument!

Second. People generally are not "working past retirement age to keep off medicare". No.. they are working past the retirement ages under 65 (early retirement ages for many professions.. and 62 when you can start taking social security).. because they DON"T QUALIFY for medicare. That's why my patients who should and could retire at 62 or even earlier (school teachers, police, corrections officers etc).. don't.. because the cost of healthcare on the private market is horrendous at those ages. So they continue to work UNTIL they get medicare.

Third. Almost all single payer health care countries have robust private insurance markets. And the same would happen in a Medicare for all system. Who manages medicare now? Do you know? ITs PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. That's right.. private insurance companies administer medicare for a big fat fee. In fact.. administering public insurance plans account for about 60% of private insurance company revenue.

In all likelihood... medicare for all would be a boon for private insurance companies. The private insurance companies would administer the medicare for a nice government profit with no risk. Then the insurance companies offer supplemental plans which are again, .. huge money makers, to the middle class... and then insurance companies would offer big expensive plans to large companies, and rich folks.. again. at a huge profit.

jaeger19 · Sep 3, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
The free market works when it is allowed to work as the founders intended.

Hmmm... what do you think happened if you got sick in the 1700's and you didn't have money to cover the doctor? Is that how you want healthcare to work in this country.

That is an absurd statement. If the free market did not want to cover sick people, companies like Blue Cross-Blue Shiedl, United Healthcare, etc would not exists,

Please explain why an insurance company wants to cover a sick person that costs them more money than what the person pays to them? In a free market.. why do companies like Blue Cross want to operate at a loss?

t's really simple. Institute changes in laws to allow rather then prohibit the free market.

Great.. if its simple... lets here those changes to allow a "free market".

ataraxia · Sep 3, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
The free market works when it is allowed to work as the founders intended.

Cars are on the free market, working as the founders intended. Not everyone can afford one.

Are you OK with it working the same way for a small child just diagnosed with leukemia?

That is an absurd statement. If the free market did not want to cover sick people, companies like Blue Cross-Blue Shiedl, United Healthcare, etc would not exists, nor would Cancer clinics, private doctor practices, hospitals, etc. They would all get into another line of work or business.

Are you saying they don't like to deny people who are already sick? It's called pre-existing conditions.

t's really simple. Institute changes in laws to allow rather then prohibit the free market.

Yeah, sure. It's called the ACA. Are you OK with it. It interferes in the free market and makes them cover people who are already sick.