Health Insurance vs Medicare for All

[independentusa]

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).

That works until it doesn't and you get sick. Then your so called insurance says, nope, we do not pay until you reach your max. You do not have the money, too bad. Just so you know I worked in the health care industry for forty years and the one thing I can tell you is that we should not call what we have a s a health care system but a profit center. The idea of our system is not to provide health care, but to limit is so as to increase profits. It is interesting that private health insurance the administrative costs run to almost 28%, while the cost of administrating Medicare run under 7%. That is due to the obscene salaries, benefits and bonuses paid to the CEO's and upper management of those same insurance companies.

 

[gdgyva]

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

Why?

Jobs?

Money?

Profit?

And then there is incentive....you take profit out of the equation and a lot of the development also goes by the wayside

Why should a company spend 20 million developing technology that won’t reap them 100 million? Greed is good at times

 

[Nap]

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****?

The bolded is why many would believe in the current system. If half or in some cases most of your healthcare is payed by your employer, why would you want to go to a system that the entire burden is shifted on to you through taxation? Most Americans are covered by their employers so the only people that would really be saving any money are the corporations that the proponents of Medicare for All allegedly hate and those on the individual market. The majority of middle class Americans would come out much worse in a switch to nationalized healthcare.

 

[independentusa]

because people think that the government is more capable than you in knowing what is best for your healthcare.
the government has proven itself 100% inept at actually doing this.

the solution is simple insurance is a hedge against something bad happening to you.
this is how we treat all forms of insurance except health insurance.

health insurance has to cover every sniffle, sneeze and cough someone has. this leads to higher costs and higher usage rates.
on top of that doctors have to order 1m un-needed tests to cover you from suing them.

I have always been a fan of treating health insurance like car insurance.
you pay for the sniffles, coughs, and sneezes and the insurance will cover you in case of an accident.

by dropping out every day uses and putting in a HSA system we can cover pretty much everyone while making sure if you get cancer you are covered.
the only thing you have to pay for how much insurance will cover. 70-100%.
the more covered the more it costs, but you can pay for it out of your HSA as well.

no one has what say in what doctor you see or treatment you get.

How do you figure that the government has failed in any aspect of healthcare. The Medicare system is the most efficient systems out there. Our present for profit health care system costs twice as much per capita as any other country in the world and we rank about 37th for quality of care. And the per capita costs don't even include the fact that millions of Americans do not have insurance or can use the health care system. So how do you say that our government does not do well with health care?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Those two charts make abundantly clear why people are reticent to risk suffering major changes to the general nature of the health insurance coverage structure/market in the US: in the scheme of things, they aren't paying much for health insurance. Does that mean health insurance doesn't cost too much? No. It means that people like being on the "benefitting side" of extant moral hazard in the health insurance market. (I suspect most folks haven't taken and comprehended the concepts taught in a principles of economics course; thus they have no idea that that's the term for what they like. That they don't isn't a big deal provided folks who analyze the matter do.)

Also, with employer provided coverage your contribution is deducted from your paycheck. You don't notice it. And if you have a good job, you get better health insurance. You don't want...*gasp*...Medicare.

I have great health insurance from my employer. I believe in universal health care. But I think it would be an easier sell if it not only reduced costs but meant I kept more moneya in my paycheck.

Finally, much has to be done about fraud. Fraud is major problem with Medicare.

Not long ago, Miami Beach executive Philip Esformes was living quite comfortably among America’s “1 percent,” raking in millions from his healthcare business, gobbling up pricey real estate and darting around the country in chartered jets.

Then, in a flash, his luxurious lifestyle went poof: FBI agents arrested Esformes in July 2016 and he suddenly became the poster boy for the biggest Medicare fraud case in the country. He was charged with bilking $1 billion out of the federal healthcare program for the elderly and disabled, while his vast business assets and bank accounts were frozen.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article225176275.html

 

[Xelor]

Also, with employer provided coverage your contribution is deducted from your paycheck. You don't notice it. And if you have a good job, you get better health insurance. You don't want...*gasp*...Medicare.

I have great health insurance from my employer. I believe in universal health care. But I think it would be an easier sell if it not only reduced costs but meant I kept more moneya in my paycheck.

Finally, much has to be done about fraud. Fraud is major problem with Medicare.



https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article225176275.html

1. I'm of the mind that the worst thing to ever happen to health care is health insurance because what we face right now is, IMO, the consequence of the lion's share of health care being, for about 100 years, paid for by deep-pocketed entities that are not the recipients of health care. (I won't expound on that ida because it's more than adequately addressed in linked content from my post to which your above comments are a response.)
2. I cannot say that some folks "don't notice it." I will say that I think folks who "don't notice it" are idiots, indolent and/or insouciant about their own interests and income.
3. I had rather health care goods and services prices resulting from market forces interacting in either a perfect competition market structure and/or health insurance prices established in managed natural monopoly market structure.

 

[BlueTex]

Why?

Jobs?

Money?

Profit?

And then there is incentive....you take profit out of the equation and a lot of the development also goes by the wayside

Why should a company spend 20 million developing technology that won’t reap them 100 million? Greed is good at times

It's odd.... The defense industry seems to innovate pretty well and they only have one customer.... hmmmm....

 

[ludin]

How do you figure that the government has failed in any aspect of healthcare. The Medicare system is the most efficient systems out there. Our present for profit health care system costs twice as much per capita as any other country in the world and we rank about 37th for quality of care. And the per capita costs don't even include the fact that millions of Americans do not have insurance or can use the health care system. So how do you say that our government does not do well with health care?

It is so efficient it is going broke and will be broke soon. It is so efficient that doctors are not taking more medicare patients for obvious reasons.
Ugg i get so sick of hearing this idiotic idiums that have been debunked time and time again.

so i will make this as simple as possible.

the WHO organization on their rankings skews those numbers big time. They give more weight to distribution than they do quality.
IE their ranking system is bias against people that offer better quality of care for people that say everyone has access to healthcare.

so basically as long as i say you have healthcare it doesn't matter that it takes you a year or more to see a doctor or that you can't get
certain medications or prescriptions. as long as you have it then i will rank higher than someone that gives you all of the options you need, but
you have to pay for it.

my current healthcare is better than medicare and costs less as well.

look at medicaid, look at VA, look at the ACA. all complete failures of government trying to run healthcare.
walter reid come to mind?

that is what real government healthcare looks like.

 

[jonny5]

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

Its quite simple. My healthcare is none of your business. So, of course Im going to resist YOU telling me how Im going to get it.

 

[calamity]

The bolded is why many would believe in the current system. If half or in some cases most of your healthcare is payed by your employer, why would you want to go to a system that the entire burden is shifted on to you through taxation? Most Americans are covered by their employers so the only people that would really be saving any money are the corporations that the proponents of Medicare for All allegedly hate and those on the individual market. The majority of middle class Americans would come out much worse in a switch to nationalized healthcare.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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

Why, exactly, must that be done at the federal government level?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am in favor of finding fixes to our HC system. In fact was in favor of Medicare for all rather than ACA. Still think it is workable but people have to understand the complications. For example 1) most people who are not covered by the government via Medicade,Medicare or the VA have have the majority of their costs paid by their employer. 2) So we have to have an adult discussion of who will pick up those costs.

Many large companies are actually self-insured. Insurance companies are the administrators of the policies of the companies. So there is no one great evil that if we just fix all our cost problems go away.

1) That is somewhat misleading since the employer just considers that part of their direct labor cost. If an employer (aka job creator) is paying (subsidizing) their employees' medical care insurance costs then that is (currently) less expensive for them than increasing their annual salaries by the same amount. This bizarre situation is because of the federal income (and payroll) tax code. The employer writes off the entire insurance subsidy amount but the employee pays no income tax on it either.

2) I agree. If we were to assume that the employer would (somehow) break even by no longer doing so then only a portion of the employer's current medical care insurance subsidy would be added to each employee's salary (to keep overall direct labor costs the same) . That would bump every employee's taxable income up by a considerable amount. The question then becomes - how would the resulting federal income (and payroll) tax windfall be treated?

 

[washunut]

1) That is somewhat misleading since the employer just considers that part of their direct labor cost. If an employer (aka job creator) is paying (subsidizing) their employees' medical care insurance costs then that is (currently) less expensive for them than increasing their annual salaries by the same amount. This bizarre situation is because of the federal income (and payroll) tax code. The employer writes off the entire insurance subsidy amount but the employee pays no income tax on it either.

2) I agree. If we were to assume that the employer would (somehow) break even by no longer doing so then only a portion of the employer's current medical care insurance subsidy would be added to each employee's salary (to keep overall direct labor costs the same) . That would bump every employee's taxable income up by a considerable amount. The question then becomes - how would the resulting federal income (and payroll) tax windfall be treated?

Interesting. Your post above has been the subject of a lot of debate by many. Not sure that the costs that employers currently pick up would naturally be passed along as wage increases if they go away.

I could be wrong but doubt that a warehouse peron currently making $25-30K per year will get a windfall raise of $10K because we go to Medicare for all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Interesting. Your post above has been the subject of a lot of debate by many. Not sure that the costs that employers currently pick up would naturally be passed along as wage increases if they go away.

I could be wrong but doubt that a warehouse peron currently making $25-30K per year will get a windfall raise of $10K because we go to Medicare for all.

If not then the warehouse owner (assuming they had 50 employees) could (would?) get a $500K/year pay raise (by keeping total direct labor costs the same). Since most who like UHC also dislike income inequality that would seem to be a very bad trade-off.

 

[washunut]

If not then the warehouse owner (assuming they had 50 employees) could (would?) get a $500K/year pay raise (by keeping total direct labor costs the same). Since most who like UHC also dislike income inequality that would seem to be a very bad trade-off.

Thus the problem of how to fund this change.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thus the problem of how to fund this change.

I would recommend doing it the old-fashioned way - raise personal income taxation. If the UHC proponents are correct then it would be a wash, at worst, to take (up to) $10K/year in additional taxes away from those who just got a $10K/year pay raise.

 

[independentusa]

It is so efficient it is going broke and will be broke soon. It is so efficient that doctors are not taking more medicare patients for obvious reasons.
Ugg i get so sick of hearing this idiotic idiums that have been debunked time and time again.

so i will make this as simple as possible.

the WHO organization on their rankings skews those numbers big time. They give more weight to distribution than they do quality.
IE their ranking system is bias against people that offer better quality of care for people that say everyone has access to healthcare.

so basically as long as i say you have healthcare it doesn't matter that it takes you a year or more to see a doctor or that you can't get
certain medications or prescriptions. as long as you have it then i will rank higher than someone that gives you all of the options you need, but
you have to pay for it. All of those systems have been underfunded for years and that has been done by the GOP to try and privatize everything that could be a profit center. It is now happening to our public school system. And I am on Medicare and i can see my doctor anytime I want.

my current healthcare is better than medicare and costs less as well.

look at medicaid, look at VA, look at the ACA. all complete failures of government trying to run healthcare.
walter reid come to mind?

that is what real government healthcare looks like.

It is going broke because it is and always has been underfunded. Its cost per patient is well below that of for profits. The for profit system found that out years ago when they opted to take over Medicare in certain regions of the country. They were called Medicare advantage plans. Some private The plan worked like this, they gave these private for profit companies in payment of taking over Medicare patients the average cost of Medicare patients in the same area the plan was available. Within a year the Advantage plans were screaming that Medicare was not giving them enough money to keep their plans profitable and got congress to give them 15% more than the same regular Medicare patients were costing Medicare. Eventually even that was not enough so most of the private for profit companies dropped their Medicare Advantage plans and left their patients out in the cold. So Medicare was able to keep its costs below that of the for profits, which makes sense as Medicare does not have to create a profit and has much lower administrative costs.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Red:
One reason is that the defender holds an equity position in the health insurance industry.

I hold an equity position, and several job titles and positions and licenses within the Insurance Industry.

Switching to Medicare for all wouldn't bother me one bit. I'd lose a bit of income, sure at first, but people not having to pay super high premiums or are to afraid to leave their work insurance would be out looking for supplemental insurances which are more profitable for us. They would have more income to invest in things like annuities, and life insurance, or Long term care. All very profitable for me.

So yeah, my renewals (income I get from people renewing their policies every year that I sold them when I was an agent) would take a hit. Probably drop below 100k, but I'd be clearing three times underwriting all the new supplemental. People want to spend money.

And our employees are all contracted free agents that are paid 100 percent on commission, they would get more sales on cheaper supplements when people have more disposable income. So they are all for it as well.

But that's just my company, and it's 37 subsidiaries, 6 sister companies and one parent company. Can't speak for the others.

 

[independentusa]

I hold an equity position, and several job titles and positions and licenses within the Insurance Industry.

Switching to Medicare for all wouldn't bother me one bit. I'd lose a bit of income, sure at first, but people not having to pay super high premiums or are to afraid to leave their work insurance would be out looking for supplemental insurances which are more profitable for us. They would have more income to invest in things like annuities, and life insurance, or Long term care. All very profitable for me.

So yeah, my renewals (income I get from people renewing their policies every year that I sold them when I was an agent) would take a hit. Probably drop below 100k, but I'd be clearing three times underwriting all the new supplemental. People want to spend money.

And our employees are all contracted free agents that are paid 100 percent on commission, they would get more sales on cheaper supplements when people have more disposable income. So they are all for it as well.

But that's just my company, and it's 37 subsidiaries, 6 sister companies and one parent company. Can't speak for the others.

I do not think that many people understand the Medicare system. It does not pay for everything. Most people who can afford it have supplement coverage to cover most if not all that Medicare does not cover. Those who can not afford supplement coverage usually get it through Medicaid. So there will always be a need for private insurance companies.

 

[ludin]

It is going broke because it is and always has been underfunded. Its cost per patient is well below that of for profits. The for profit system found that out years ago when they opted to take over Medicare in certain regions of the country. They were called Medicare advantage plans. Some private The plan worked like this, they gave these private for profit companies in payment of taking over Medicare patients the average cost of Medicare patients in the same area the plan was available. Within a year the Advantage plans were screaming that Medicare was not giving them enough money to keep their plans profitable and got congress to give them 15% more than the same regular Medicare patients were costing Medicare. Eventually even that was not enough so most of the private for profit companies dropped their Medicare Advantage plans and left their patients out in the cold. So Medicare was able to keep its costs below that of the for profits, which makes sense as Medicare does not have to create a profit and has much lower administrative costs.

which is why doctors don't like treating medicare patients. It costs more to treat them than they get paid.
it is why some doctors have stopped taking medicare or new medicare patients.

that doesn't include fraud or the extra cost of supplement plans because medicare doesn't cover everything.

those supplement plans are more expensive for 1 person than what i pay per month to cover my entire family.

so more expensive.
less coverage

umm what benefit do i get out of it again? ol yea more of my money goes to the government great just want i need.

sorry i can't afford all your free stuff.

 

[ludin]

I hold an equity position, and several job titles and positions and licenses within the Insurance Industry.

Switching to Medicare for all wouldn't bother me one bit. I'd lose a bit of income, sure at first, but people not having to pay super high premiums or are to afraid to leave their work insurance would be out looking for supplemental insurances which are more profitable for us. They would have more income to invest in things like annuities, and life insurance, or Long term care. All very profitable for me.

No people would still pay all of that. This is the either a lie that people are telling themselves or they have been so duped that they actually think it is free. ol you are going to pay super high taxes.
20-30% at least more.
Not only that but still have to pay more for that supplemental insurance to cover the gaps in medicare. so you are wrong about super high premiums. they will be paying more than what they are now.
annuities are a rip off along with life insurance. I had life insurance. it was term life insurance. we canceled it after about a year or so. we saw 0 benefit from having it.

So yeah, my renewals (income I get from people renewing their policies every year that I sold them when I was an agent) would take a hit. Probably drop below 100k, but I'd be clearing three times underwriting all the new supplemental. People want to spend money.

And our employees are all contracted free agents that are paid 100 percent on commission, they would get more sales on cheaper supplements when people have more disposable income. So they are all for it as well.

But that's just my company, and it's 37 subsidiaries, 6 sister companies and one parent company. Can't speak for the others.

Good for you glad you think healthcare costing more is a good thing.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

which is why doctors don't like treating medicare patients. It costs more to treat them than they get paid.
it is why some doctors have stopped taking medicare or new medicare patients.

that doesn't include fraud or the extra cost of supplement plans because medicare doesn't cover everything.

those supplement plans are more expensive for 1 person than what i pay per month to cover my entire family.

so more expensive.
less coverage

umm what benefit do i get out of it again? ol yea more of my money goes to the government great just want i need.

sorry i can't afford all your free stuff.

Hearing this in real life, as an insurance guy, my eyes would light up. You are a man that's unhappy and in need of a dedicated agent to work for you. People like you made me wealthy...

I don't care if you are dying from cancer next week, and have zero income. I got something to sell you...

 

[ludin]

Hearing this in real life, as an insurance guy, my eyes would light up. You are a man that's unhappy and in need of a dedicated agent to work for you. People like you made me wealthy...
I don't care if you are dying from cancer next week, and have zero income. I got something to sell you...

sorry i have great healthcare coverage through my company. I don't need you or your lousy insurance scam plans.
so no i won't make you wealthy.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

No people would still pay all of that. This is the either a lie that people are telling themselves or they have been so duped that they actually think it is free. ol you are going to pay super high taxes.
20-30% at least more.
Not only that but still have to pay more for that supplemental insurance to cover the gaps in medicare. so you are wrong about super high premiums. they will be paying more than what they are now.
annuities are a rip off along with life insurance. I had life insurance. it was term life insurance. we canceled it after about a year or so. we saw 0 benefit from having it.



Good for you glad you think healthcare costing more is a good thing.

So many things. Where to start. 1 let's start with your term life insurance having no benefit. Well, it was a term life insurance policy. If you don't die within the term there is no benefit. But it's way cheaper. That's why healthy get it as a just in case. If you wanted to build value, you should have gone with an Indexed Universal Life policy. You pay a premium for the first few years that builds up a cash value, that is then added to a general investment portfolio and invested. You get a return based on the Index of the Stock Market, with a no loss guarantee because it's off the index, not direct investment.

Taxes do not pay for Medicare Part B, Part A you paid your whole life for. But part B comes at a Premium. Premium costs are based on a pool of people. Mainly on the risk of paying out on that pool of people. Currently Part B premium is around 120 bucks a month. And the pool that price is based on is majority unhealthy people. As in gauranteed payout on Medicares end in the near future.

But what happens when that pool gets an influx of mostly healthy young people. The premium goes down.

A new enrollee to medicare, that's healthy, non smoker, can expect to pay 100 or so for Part B, and around 65 for supplemental that covers the 20 percent and deductibles. Depending on State.

The last time I priced insurance for just me, as a 33 yo non smoker with no major health issues in the US, it was around 400 a month. With only a fraction of the coverage an person dying of cancer can get at half the cost with medicare.

As an expert in Insurance. Who knows how it works at it's deepest level. I'm telling you, you have no idea what you are talking about. None. Zero.

We don't even profit or payout out of incoming premiums, we invest them and make our money in the market. And pay out off those earnings, both our commissions, and the claims on policies.

Which is the only reason, the only reason, premiums are as cheap as they are now, considering the prices hospitals and doctors charge in the US.

As for Annuities, there are multiple types, for different purposes. Some are rip offs, but most are better deals than a CD at a bank. So your prejudice against them is just that prejudice.

 

[Idiometer]

because people think that the government is more capable than you in knowing what is best for your healthcare.
the government has proven itself 100% inept at actually doing this.

the solution is simple insurance is a hedge against something bad happening to you.
this is how we treat all forms of insurance except health insurance.

health insurance has to cover every sniffle, sneeze and cough someone has. this leads to higher costs and higher usage rates.
on top of that doctors have to order 1m un-needed tests to cover you from suing them.

I have always been a fan of treating health insurance like car insurance.
you pay for the sniffles, coughs, and sneezes and the insurance will cover you in case of an accident.

by dropping out every day uses and putting in a HSA system we can cover pretty much everyone while making sure if you get cancer you are covered.
the only thing you have to pay for how much insurance will cover. 70-100%.
the more covered the more it costs, but you can pay for it out of your HSA as well.

no one has what say in what doctor you see or treatment you get.

Actually, government is doing a pretty good job. It's called Medicare. No one tells me what doctors to see. I don't need a Healthcare Savings Account. I don't need to negotiate costs, since Medicare does that for me. As to how much is covered, Medicare covers a standard 80%. I don't want to pay that extra bit because of my pre-existing conditions, so I pay an insurance company for a supplement. My total annual cost is just over $3,300 per year, and that's because my supplement covers everything Medicare does not. I pay ZERO deductibles and ZERO co-payments, and see whatever specialists I want as often as I need.

Medicare for all would increase what everyone currently pays via a payroll deduction, but you wouldn't have to wait until you're 65 to get coverage like mine and it would be boatloads less costly than what you have now. The only problematic bit is prescription costs. Part D plans are the most convoluted pieces of shyte in the industry, and they're all alike. If everyone was on Medicare, perhaps they could more easily negotiate those costs as well.

Most physicians approve of the idea. The only losers would be the bottom-feeding insurance companies, which is why we don't already have it. Their lobbyists have seriously deep pockets.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program