Health Insurance vs Medicare for All

[Bullseye]

Ok, tell me why anyone would defend the current system.

Typical monthly health insurance premium: $1500 to $2000, half of which is a burden on private business. Deductibles ranging from $2000 to $5000. Co-pays that can reach $10,000.

So, at best, if you are a healthy family, you are paying $18,000 a year for insurance. If you are a sick one, it could be as high as $35,000 after maxing out deductibles and copay. And, that's if you are lucky enough to have your illness covered in full by the scam company sucking away your money. Sometimes, you get the "sorry, not covered" response. And, other times, you get sued by hospitals because your insurance refused to pay the bill in full, a trick they use to max out your out-of-pocket expensive and minimize their own liability.

But, yet, millions of people in the US believe upending this broken system is the most horrible thing ever. That any politician who slams it hard and wants to replace it is advocating Socialism! They are a Commie! A Pinko! You get the drift.

Who honestly believes that bull****?

And you really think "Medicare for all" will be FREE? :shock:

 

[Nap]

If your employer provides insurance, he is taking out of your pay—both halves of it. One is deducted from your gross, and the other half is pay you never even got to see. Duh.

So are you of the opinion that if we take that financial responsibility of paying for their workers healthcare that they will in turn use that money to raise wages? Sounds like you have turned into a proponent of "trickle down economics"

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Red:
Okay.

Blue:
Aside from long term care coverage, that, I'm sure, is what you would hope happens or act to effect, but presuming that be what transpires strikes me as "counting unhatched chickens," particularly given the nascence of the "Medicare for all" notion.

• There'd need to be changes in Medicare's provisions to alter the demand for long-term care coverage.
• The notion that "Medicare for all" necessarily means Medicare's provisions would remain as they are is dubitable at best.
  
  Perhaps you've seen more detailed expositions of what exactly "Medicare for all" entails.
  
  I have yet to see anyone proffer details, or an explicit declaration, that speak to whether that phrase means nothing other than the current Medicare provisions and coverage (and limits to them) would simply be available to all, or whether it means that everyone would have (have affordable access to) governmentally provided health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be called "Medicare," but some or all of the terms will differ from those of the current Medicare insurance program.

Pink:
That they do; however, health insurance (not life, investment/retirement or casualty ones, none of which I mentioned) is only slightly more enthusiastically purchased than are cemetary plots. People don't buy health insurance because they expressly want health insurance; they buy it to mitigate the risk of going broke paying out-of-pocket for medical care. "I demand health insurance" falls into a wholly different category of effective demand than does "I demand a trip to Bali," "I demand a new car" or "I demand a maid."

Aside:
There's some thought about that Millennials aren't all that keen to buy stuff.​

I've spoke on this frequently.

But I'll go ahead and give you the run down special, just for you, because you've never seen it before.

Part A, or hospital insurance. You qualify for this premium free if you worked 40 quarters or ten years. They took the premium out of your paycheck. Everyone's paycheck, young and old people.

For that you get, Inpatient Hospital stays covered. Limited Home Healthcare Services. Skilled Nursing Coverage. And Hospice Care.

That's all you get for what's taken out of your paycheck. And it has an 1100 dollar deductible.

Then there is Part B. This is medical coverage. You have to opt in when you enroll. It costs a Premium. It is not free. It Covers 80 percent of your medical costs that are not inpatient at a hospital. That part is important to remember. You are responsible for that other 20 percent and it's not capped out of pocket.

The premium fluctuates year to year based on the pool of people it covers. Right now, that pool is disabled people, and people over 65. Not a healthy bunch. But there are so many of them in the pool, the risk is offset. Which brings the premium down to around 100 bucks a month. Not subsidized. Not paid for out of taxes. Paid for by you.

Part C is the private plans or Medicare Advantage plans. They are garbage and should never ever be gotten. Ever.

Part D is prescription drugs. And is pretty garbage to, it was installed by W Bush and he made it where Medicare cannot negotiate for bulk discounts.

What has to be changed to enroll everyone on Medicare and have 300 million people in the pool? The age limit. There are already provisions in place for a premium for Part A for anyone that doesn't have the 40 credits. It's not that expensive.

Now, lets talk about Medicare pricing. Medicare pays a regional average. Hospitals mark up their prices 400 to 2000 percent just to inflate that average. Insurance companies are aware of this and negotiate that price down. Hospitals that are non profit actually take in more profit than oil and tobacco. It's the root of the problem no one wants to talk about.

The VA needs more hospitals built to meet demand. They do not have a profit incentive. They have an efficiency incentive. If we built a VA hospital in every part of the country. Like we should anyway. We can then determine the actual cost of healthcare from the point of the provider. We then set medicare prices to regional VA costs. Or at least cap markups to 300 percent. That's a fair profit margin for any business right 300 percent? That's above cost btw. As in they recoup the cost and then 300 percent profit. Right now, they can mark up and do way way more.

So to answer your question. Honor our promises to Veterans. Cap Hospital Markup at 300 percent. Lower the Medicare Age. Are the only changes you would have to make. And here's the kicker. Anyone can opt out of Medicare. Part A or B. We won't need to have a mandate. Because the pool will be so big, won't matter. As it's a single provider instead of thousands. One big pool, instead of thousands of little ones.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Red:
[/URL].[/INDENT]

I've spoke on this frequently.

Part 2...

Now let's talk about all the money we would save...

All those unpaid bills that hospitals and doctors write off? Well guess what, that's solved.

Medicaid? Don't need to expand that, heck can probably cut it back.

Medical Bankruptcy, the most common type? Thing of the past.

We are talking Billions of dollars saved, and earned in the economy. With very little effort to do so.

 

[Xelor]

I've spoke on this frequently.

But I'll go ahead and give you the run down special, just for you, because you've never seen it before.

Part A, or hospital insurance. You qualify for this premium free if you worked 40 quarters or ten years. They took the premium out of your paycheck. Everyone's paycheck, young and old people.

For that you get, Inpatient Hospital stays covered. Limited Home Healthcare Services. Skilled Nursing Coverage. And Hospice Care.

That's all you get for what's taken out of your paycheck. And it has an 1100 dollar deductible.

Then there is Part B. This is medical coverage. You have to opt in when you enroll. It costs a Premium. It is not free. It Covers 80 percent of your medical costs that are not inpatient at a hospital. That part is important to remember. You are responsible for that other 20 percent and it's not capped out of pocket.

The premium fluctuates year to year based on the pool of people it covers. Right now, that pool is disabled people, and people over 65. Not a healthy bunch. But there are so many of them in the pool, the risk is offset. Which brings the premium down to around 100 bucks a month. Not subsidized. Not paid for out of taxes. Paid for by you.

Part C is the private plans or Medicare Advantage plans. They are garbage and should never ever be gotten. Ever.

Part D is prescription drugs. And is pretty garbage to, it was installed by W Bush and he made it where Medicare cannot negotiate for bulk discounts.

What has to be changed to enroll everyone on Medicare and have 300 million people in the pool? The age limit. There are already provisions in place for a premium for Part A for anyone that doesn't have the 40 credits. It's not that expensive.

Now, lets talk about Medicare pricing. Medicare pays a regional average. Hospitals mark up their prices 400 to 2000 percent just to inflate that average. Insurance companies are aware of this and negotiate that price down. Hospitals that are non profit actually take in more profit than oil and tobacco. It's the root of the problem no one wants to talk about.

The VA needs more hospitals built to meet demand. They do not have a profit incentive. They have an efficiency incentive. If we built a VA hospital in every part of the country. Like we should anyway. We can then determine the actual cost of healthcare from the point of the provider. We then set medicare prices to regional VA costs. Or at least cap markups to 300 percent. That's a fair profit margin for any business right 300 percent? That's above cost btw. As in they recoup the cost and then 300 percent profit. Right now, they can mark up and do way way more.

So to answer your question. Honor our promises to Veterans. Cap Hospital Markup at 300 percent. Lower the Medicare Age. Are the only changes you would have to make. And here's the kicker. Anyone can opt out of Medicare. Part A or B. We won't need to have a mandate. Because the pool will be so big, won't matter. As it's a single provider instead of thousands. One big pool, instead of thousands of little ones.

To address which of my remarks in post 72 did you write the above post?

I think you believe the above remarks are a response to this:

I have yet to see anyone proffer details, or an explicit declaration, that speaks to whether that phrase means nothing other than the current Medicare provisions and coverage (and limits to them) would simply be available to all, or whether it means that everyone would have (have affordable access to) governmentally provided health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be called "Medicare," but some or all of the terms will differ from those of the current Medicare insurance program.
-- Xelor

The problem, however, is that what you've presented above is an exposition that responds to something I didn't say or imply.

Your remarks -- which for now I'll accept as accurate -- speak to what be, in general, the minimum nature and extent of changes to extant Medicare coverage terms/limits/provisions so as to make it "for all." All well and good, however, what I said is that I have yet to see any politician's explication of what "Medicare for all," in their mind means.

• Does it mean making the minimum nature/extent of changes such as you've noted?
• Does it mean materially revamping the current program?
• Is "Medicare for all" little but a catch-phrase summarizing an idea that's, in fact, as different from extant Medicare as is salt from pepper?

I don't (presently) take exception with the veracity of your depiction of the minimum changes needed. I observe, however, that your essay doesn't resolve or address the uncertainties I noted.

The exchange between you and me is tantamount to my saying I don't know if it'll rain tomorrow, and your replying with an accurate report of today's weather.

 

[veritas1]

Actually right now there are states where only 1 insurer is in their market there is no choice for them...is that okay?

No. We need the broadest possible choice yet Dems want none.

 

[veritas1]

You pay for it out of your taxes.


No finding an insurance company who'll argue over the cost of what you need.


You get sick, you go to hospital, they cure/fix you and you leave.

You never get your credit card out once.


And 4 weeks later you don't get a bill for $50,000 or more from the damn hospital.

It's estimated to cost $35 trillion over 10 years. That's all the tax revenue the government would normally collect. It's DOA.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

To address which of my remarks in post 72 did you write the above post?

I think you believe the above remarks are a response to this:

The problem, however, is that what you've presented above is an exposition that responds to something I didn't say or imply.

Your remarks -- which for now I'll accept as accurate -- speak to what be, in general, the minimum nature and extent of changes to extant Medicare coverage terms/limits/provisions so as to make it "for all." All well and good, however, what I said is that I have yet to see any politician's explication of what "Medicare for all," in their mind means.

• Does it mean making the minimum nature/extent of changes such as you've noted?
• Does it mean materially revamping the current program?
• Is "Medicare for all" little but a catch-phrase summarizing an idea that's, in fact, as different from extant Medicare as is salt from pepper?

I don't (presently) take exception with the veracity of your depiction of the minimum changes needed. I observe, however, that your essay doesn't resolve or address the uncertainties I noted.

The exchange between you and me is tantamount to my saying I don't know if it'll rain tomorrow, and your replying with an accurate report of today's weather.

Well, the only one that's gotten into the details of what they would do is Bernie...

And while I respect Bernie, his way is a giant leap instead of the tiny steps a nation has to take to change course.

Also his plan would increase my tax rate to 43 percent. And that just bugs me...

But I don't think Bernie is going to be President. So I'm not to worried about him. He's more of a whip driving the others toward something I can live with than anything else.

The problem with the politicians is, they are jumping on the bandwagon and plan to outsource the bill writing after they win. Republicans would outsource it to one of their bill mills, and Dems would outsource it to...

I don't know actually, I'm not a democrat.

Which is why, it doesn't matter which one you pick, as long as they can get bipartisan support any version of medicare for all, even Bernies, would better than current system.

I don't see Bernie getting Bipartisan support. Nor AOC, with the sheer amount of hate she's received from Trump's base for absolutely no reason other than she's a socialist.

But, if we got a guy like Kasich to team up with the least hated Dem, who I don't know, does it matter? To go for a baby step minimal change bill for something like I described, that's optimal for me.

and to nitpick, you didn't specify politician. You said, "I have yet to see anyone" I am counted as anyone...

 

[Xelor]

Well, the only one that's gotten into the details of what they would do is Bernie...

And while I respect Bernie, his way is a giant leap instead of the tiny steps a nation has to take to change course.

Also his plan would increase my tax rate to 43 percent. And that just bugs me...

But I don't think Bernie is going to be President. So I'm not to worried about him. He's more of a whip driving the others toward something I can live with than anything else.

The problem with the politicians is, they are jumping on the bandwagon and plan to outsource the bill writing after they win. Republicans would outsource it to one of their bill mills, and Dems would outsource it to...

I don't know actually, I'm not a democrat.

Which is why, it doesn't matter which one you pick, as long as they can get bipartisan support any version of medicare for all, even Bernies, would better than current system.

I don't see Bernie getting Bipartisan support. Nor AOC, with the sheer amount of hate she's received from Trump's base for absolutely no reason other than she's a socialist.

But, if we got a guy like Kasich to team up with the least hated Dem, who I don't know, does it matter? To go for a baby step minimal change bill for something like I described, that's optimal for me.

and to nitpick, you didn't specify politician. You said, "I have yet to see anyone" I am counted as anyone...

Red:
Nitpick noted; I'll give it to you for I did say "anyone."

FWIW, I meant, but didn't clearly articulate, "anyone who matters singularly, or will matter, in the legislative and public policy decision-making process of transforming the health insurance industry and the delivery of its products." That may be you or it may not. I don't know. I know at the moment, it's not I.


RE: The main "transformative" theme of the the rest of your post:
You're all about "baby steps." You're likely not alone in that regard.

My professional career entailed, among other things, implementing "big bang" global enterprise transformations; thus sweeping change gives me no endogenous trepidation. Successfully managing such complex undertakings is what I did for some 25 years. I'm hardly the only person around who's good at doing it. Indeed, what worries me more is incremental change.

Incremental change, "baby steps" disconcert me because their minority leads folks, myopic ones who don't well understand managing change, to think "oh, this'll be easy enough to do; we can do it on our own," and then they proceed to make a mess of what should have been relatively simple. The other thing I don't like about incremental change is its susceptibility to incoherence. Invariably, somewhere in the process of making small changes to complex operations/programs, one uncovers unforeseen yet material (on some occasions "show stopping") "hiccups" that, were one to have initially pursued "big" change, one'd have found soon enough to abate, attenuate, mitigate, ameliorate, isolate, etc. them before they became major "scope creep" items.


Am I intimating that transformational change is error-free? No, not at all. I'm saying it's the type of change I prefer because it best allows for comprehensive and complete solution implementations that result in a very finely tuned "machine," rather than a patchwork of BS. Yes, transformations take more time and they seem, at the outset, to cost more, but in the long-run, they are more efficient and yield better ROIs, particularly with things as complex as health insurance for which there simply is no "silver bullet."

And, no, I've never had a client of whose business I knew more than they. What I brought to the table were what I referred to as "intelligent ignorance." (My clients got a kick out of my calling myself an "intelligent ignoramus.") That that term means is that when they tell me about their business, I have the perspicacity to ask them the right questions so that in designing and executing solutions, neither they nor me (my team) don't overlook or overly discount things that matter and that they don't overburden themselves with things that really don't matter. My being first and foremost an analyst, along with knowing a lot in general about their business, theories of operation, marketing, management, systems, processes, accounting, finance, law, project management, economics and the business and statutory environment in which my clients operated, and not knowing much at all about their specific organization, is what made that possible. Any other way, and I'd have been too "native" to do what I did.

I approach the health insurance issue the same way; thus "big" change doesn't bother me.

 

[Rich2018]

It's estimated to cost $35 trillion over 10 years. That's all the tax revenue the government would normally collect. It's DOA.

Estimated to cost that by people who don't want it.


Have you noticed that people who don't want Trump's wall have "estimated" it will cost way more than Trump "estimates" it will cost (and Trump being the self proclaimed master-wall-builder ??


Don't be so naive.

 

[jonny5]

Estimated to cost that by people who don't want it.


Have you noticed that people who don't want Trump's wall have "estimated" it will cost way more than Trump "estimates" it will cost (and Trump being the self proclaimed master-wall-builder ??


Don't be so naive.

To be fair, everything the govt does costs more than they say it will. Perhaps the best estimate is to take both estimates and add them, then add 10%.

 

[ludin]

I've seen national heath work. Up close and personal you could say.

Cut 75% of the defense budget and you're almost there.

that is the of course the answer to all liberals. make our nation defenseless.
we already tried that route it didn't work out to well.

 

[Thoreau72]

On the other hand, if you are a healthy individual, you could choose to buy a catastrophic insurance plan, have extremely reduced premiums and deductibles. You could pay for over the counter meds to take care of the sniffles and the insurance would take care of that broken leg you got skateboarding.

But under medicare for all, you would be slapped upside the head with higher taxes and get nothing out of it except the urge to run to the doctor every time you sneeze (just in case you get the sniffles, you know).

Isn't it often true that economy of volume applies? With everybody chipping in through federal and/or state taxes, couldn't the price per unit be reduced?

 

[Mycroft]

Isn't it often true that economy of volume applies? With everybody chipping in through federal and/or state taxes, couldn't the price per unit be reduced?

If you were talking about a business...yes.

Since you're talking about the government...no.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The Medicare-for-all paradox

Shifting 160 million people from the coverage they currently get through their jobs to a new government plan is a lot of disruption — and disruption, especially in health care, makes a lot of Americans nervous.

If Medicare-for-all is ever to become more than a campaign slogan, its proponents must solve that riddle.

Two of MFAs most touted benefits are also two of its biggest problems or downsides. The biggest is the idea that government will save money by reducing what is paid to providers relative to currently. They already do, as Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates for services are often less than those negotiated with insurance companies. Providers, clinics and facilities have business models built on expectation of those long-established rates negotiated with insurance companies, so if those rates are cut significantly, it means those providers will make business decisions that involve reducing their service offerings when those services are not economical for them to offer. This is how single payer disrupts access. People are not going to be happy if the availability of the care they need is less than they remember. And if the rates/payments to providers are not cut significantly, then MFA really does not save any money in this regard.

The second is the advertised "administrative savings," which inherently means elimination of large numbers of jobs that are often held be modestly-paid women. That's not to say I think we should promote policies strictly for the preservation of jobs that aren't technically necessary, but it is a downside.

And as for the idea that it will somehow eliminate all insurance companies, that is peculiar CMS contracts with insurance companies to administer its own Medicare benefits, and has been for years. If government doesn't even do the administrative leg work for Medicare, why do people think it's going to not only take over all that work for all its own current Medicare beneficiaries, but also the other 270 million Americans?

 

[veritas1]

Estimated to cost that by people who don't want it.


Have you noticed that people who don't want Trump's wall have "estimated" it will cost way more than Trump "estimates" it will cost (and Trump being the self proclaimed master-wall-builder ??


Don't be so naive.

Michael Bloomberg says it's pie in the sky nonsense. Everyone knows this. $35 trillion is probably very conservative.

 

[trixare4kids]

Michael Bloomberg says it's pie in the sky nonsense. Everyone knows this. $35 trillion is probably very conservative.

I never thought I'd agree with anything Michael Bloomberg has opined, but there it is.. It's good to see Democrats speaking out against this medicare for all nonsense. If they ever want to win an election again, they have to show the public more middle of the road type opinion.

 

[Fenton]

Personally, I struggle to understand why there is so much resistance to improve or replace the health insurance in this country.

A couple of reasons. First is last time they " improved " healthcare it cost premiums and deductables be to skyrocket and made coverage so expensive millions of Americans wound up being priced out of the insurance markets

Second, the very same people that " improved " healthcare last time are now telling us they have the fix for our " broken healthcare system ".

Third, Socialism is a regressive system rooted in authoritarianism and incompatible with the truly progressive principles this Nation was founded on.

Fourth. Every State that's looked into a State run single payer plan has been forced to scrap the idea due to cost and the effect of confiscatory tax rates on their local economies.
Vermont even passed single payer in 2011, and still hasn't implemented it because the tax increases necessary would have decimated their local economies

The idea that it would be cheaper and more efficient on a Federal level is absurd. The Democrats not only want Single payer, they want open borders. Neither is sustainable

Fifth. The VA scandal. It's a great example of how Govt run healthcare will play out if Single payer ever gets implemented in the US.
The Govt put thousands of Veterans on hidden waiting list for years where they languished without care, so imagine how they'll treat the average American citizen.

Not ONE Govt bureaucrat or employee was held accountable.

 

[Fenton]

Actually right now there are states where only 1 insurer is in their market there is no choice for them...is that okay?

Lol ! Thanks Obama-Care.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Michael Bloomberg says it's pie in the sky nonsense. Everyone knows this. $35 trillion is probably very conservative.

You're off by a decimal point. Americans currently spend about $3.5 trillion annually for healthcare. It's been estimated that at least a third of the costs are due to duplicative administration costs, mismanagement and waste. Another 1/3 because of insufficient preventative health care, and another 15% or so on optional care like cosmetic surgery.

Shifting the focus of healthcare to preventative healthcare instead of symptom response could immensely reduce healthcare costs. It could take a generation or two before we see full effect, but the costs savings and health benefits would be worthwhile. Enhanced physical and nutritional education in our schools is the first step. Providing single payer basic care would also greatly reduce costs. Check out the conservative Heritage Foundation analytical reports that Newt Gingrich was planning on using to establish a single payer plan before first lady Hilary Clinton interfered and turned congress away from any solutions. Those analysis are more on point today than at that time.

Trillions are a hard number for most people to grasp. Current spending for healthcare translates to $1 of every $6 of the GDP today. The current costs are absurd at the least. We do need leadership that will set a path for a more effective, more sufficient, less expensive healthcare on a national basis. No excuses. Can do.

A healthy America is a strong and productive America.

 

[veritas1]

You're off by a decimal point. Americans currently spend about $3.5 trillion annually for healthcare. It's been estimated that at least a third of the costs are due to duplicative administration costs, mismanagement and waste. Another 1/3 because of insufficient preventative health care, and another 15% or so on optional care like cosmetic surgery.

Shifting the focus of healthcare to preventative healthcare instead of symptom response could immensely reduce healthcare costs. It could take a generation or two before we see full effect, but the costs savings and health benefits would be worthwhile. Enhanced physical and nutritional education in our schools is the first step. Providing single payer basic care would also greatly reduce costs. Check out the conservative Heritage Foundation analytical reports that Newt Gingrich was planning on using to establish a single payer plan before first lady Hilary Clinton interfered and turned congress away from any solutions. Those analysis are more on point today than at that time.

Trillions are a hard number for most people to grasp. Current spending for healthcare translates to $1 of every $6 of the GDP today. The current costs are absurd at the least. We do need leadership that will set a path for a more effective, more sufficient, less expensive healthcare on a national basis. No excuses. Can do.

A healthy America is a strong and productive America.

I'm not off at all. Here's what I posted:

It's estimated to cost $35 trillion over 10 years. That's all the tax revenue the government would normally collect. It's DOA.

We collect a little over $3 trillion in tax revenue yearly. So, unless you want to double every Federal tax in America, you can forget it. Plus, as I said, the estimate is probably too conservative.

 

[independentusa]

actually i know a great deal. i have spent a few year researching it which is why i can call out the BS from you people when i see it.
ACtually it is required by law i do believe that hospitals must upgrade their machinery every few years.

other countries do not have this requirement which is why you will find some of them still using an xray machine from the 80's.
in fact a lot of them still use old and probably outdated equipment.

you point out the issue with government healthcare. i don't want a committee telling me i can or can't have a CT scan. if my doctor says i need a CT scan
i should be able to go and get a CT scan.

as a person that owns and runs the CT machine if you are not paying my cost to operate it then i am not taking you. hence the issue with medicare and other government
healthcare plans. hence the issue with doctors dropping out of these things.

I spent forty years in health care management. Yes health care facilities need to upgrade when necessary, but does every hospital and every clinic and every doctors office need to have the same very expensive equipment, all being underused or overused and we paying for the extra costs. You wonder why a CAT scan is this country costs over $!,500.00 and in other countries about 150 dollars. That and look at the pharmacy companies that buy out another's product and then raise the price by 100% or more. And as far as Medicare, every insurance company now tells you whether you can have another Cat scan or even the first CAT scan. Don't fool yourself into believing if your Doctor says you need some kind of treatment that your private insurance is going to always say yes. IN fact in many cases they will just say no unless you want to pay for it yourself. Privte inssurance companies are about making a profit and that means limiting what you pay for. And since a majority of health care used is by people over 65, very few doctors can say no to Medicare. You apparently have been reading some weird info about health care if that is what you can come up with. Must be from Ann Coulter.

 

[OldFatGuy]

I'm not off at all. Here's what I posted:

It's estimated to cost $35 trillion over 10 years. That's all the tax revenue the government would normally collect. It's DOA.

We collect a little over $3 trillion in tax revenue yearly. So, unless you want to double every Federal tax in America, you can forget it. Plus, as I said, the estimate is probably too conservative.

Your post I quoted said nothing about 10 years. Regardless, don't let the numbers frighten you. As I said, shifting to preventative medicine instead of symptom response, better management, ending duplicative administration and the costs will become manageable. Basic healthcare would not include coverage for optional care, luxury hospital rooms, misuse of opioid prescriptions, and similar nonsense in current spending. Ask yourself, if Americans are currently spending $1 out of every $6 GDP dollars, why shouldn't we be seeking and exploring alternatives? Whether $3.5 trillion in health care spending annually is controlled insurance companies means excessive and exorbitant CEO remuneration out of your pocket instead of a limited bureaucratic salary or not is in all our hands. UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Hemsley made $17.8 million in total compensation in 2016. Do you want to continue supporting his lifestyle with your health? Blood money, and you approve. Taxes or insurance premiums, which is worst?

 

[veritas1]

Your post I quoted said nothing about 10 years. Regardless, don't let the numbers frighten you. As I said, shifting to preventative medicine instead of symptom response, better management, ending duplicative administration and the costs will become manageable. Basic healthcare would not include coverage for optional care, luxury hospital rooms, misuse of opioid prescriptions, and similar nonsense in current spending. Ask yourself, if Americans are currently spending $1 out of every $6 GDP dollars, why shouldn't we be seeking and exploring alternatives? Whether $3.5 trillion in health care spending annually is controlled insurance companies means excessive and exorbitant CEO remuneration out of your pocket instead of a limited bureaucratic salary or not is in all our hands. UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Hemsley made $17.8 million in total compensation in 2016. Do you want to continue supporting his lifestyle with your health? Blood money, and you approve. Taxes or insurance premiums, which is worst?

If you followed the thread from the beginning, you'd know what the $35 trillion comment was about. The problem here is that you cannot have the Federal government provide this healthcare without vastly increasing taxes, probably along the lines of 100% or more. So, not only would every dollar paid by citizens to insurance companies get shipped off to DC but many trillions besides. Plus, if you don't like your doctor, you can change him/her. Same for your insurance. How do we change our government provided doctor and services when we are dissatisfied? We cannot and therein lies the problem. But, as I said, the economics make it impossible.

 

[beancounter]

OK, I read through half the comments, and no one mentioned this:

For those who have stated that taxes will go up under medicare for all, remember the increase in taxes will be offset by the elimination of insurance premiums.

I'm not saying it will definitely be a wash, but it won't be the excessive burden you think it will be.

Although given how expensive some plans are, you may actually end up saving money..unless you opt out of health insurance altogether currently.