• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Is Medicare For All

Moderate Right said:
I know what Medicare is and I know what "for all" is. And, I know what Medicare supplements are.
Click to expand...

Then you would know that there's little need for supplemental, as even things like drugs and dental are covered, and co-pays/deductibles aren't really existent as services are free at point of payment.
 
Moderate Right said:
Apparently the people in the OP link were not thrilled with it. Let's face it, Medicare sucks unless you buy supplemental insurances to go with it and you buy supplemental insurances to go with it because Medicare by itself sucks and lefties want MFA. I bet you have supplemental insurance.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. no.

Medicare is awesome.. in fact its better than any other insurance out there. Even without a supplement. Its so great that rich people LOVE their medicare.

Medicare if far and away better than what you have now Guaranteed.. even if your employer foots the total bill for your insurance. Its hard pressed to find any insurance in this country that's better than medicare.. when it comes to patient coverage.

Medicare is so great.. its the reason that the left wants to call what they plan to do... "medicare for all".

The problems is...… they can't actually do medicare for all.. without either increasing taxes exponentially... OR reducing medicare as it is today.

That's the rub of medicare for all.
 
snakestretcher said:
It wasn't a fantasy for every other nation with universal healthcare where private insurers don't get a sniff. Poor America, left behind again.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm… name the countries that don't have private health insurance.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We do not have Medicare for all and Medicare (for some) with or without additional supplemental 'private' insurance coverage can be far from user cost free.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Medicare as it sits now pays about 80% of all bills. So if someone is on Medicare and is really sick that 20% they have to pay (without a Medigap plan) could easily bankrupt someone.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Exactly. Medicare as it sits now pays about 80% of all bills. So if someone is on Medicare and is really sick that 20% they have to pay (without a Medigap plan) could easily bankrupt someone.
Click to expand...

Actually that's wrong.

Medicare pays 100% for your hospital stay.. 100% for the rehab you need after the hospital (up to 20 days then 80% after those 20 days for another 80 days) then 100% of the home health you need.

It pays 80% for outpatient therapies, outpatient doctors, and other outpatient procedures.

(we are talking medicare part A and Medicare part B on top of that is medicare part D which covers pharma)
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The whole country knows that Medicare pays 80%.. This couple must not have been able to afford the other 20%...

I guess the OP's point is without Medicare they would have been on the hook for the whole 100%, and somehow that's better?
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure of that. We still have folk who don't know that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing.
 
snakestretcher said:
If universal healthcare was adopted and you shut for-profit insurers out, guess what? Every gets richer-and healthier-and healthcare, overall, is cheaper for everyone.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
aociswundumho said:
Prior to 1973 healthcare in the US was cheap and affordable. That was the year of the first big piece of government intervention into the healthcare market: the HMO Act. Ever since then it's been more government intervention and more government regulation until we have a situation where hospitals don't even give out prices but charge sick people $12 for a dixie cup.
Click to expand...

It was cheap and affordable and it was terrible compared to todays level of healthcare.

And hospital prices mean pretty much nothing.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

So explain why universal healthcare is cheaper than private medical insurance in every country that has adopted it, and still has the private option. You have the highest per capita spend on healthcare, in the world, by a long way. Yet you rank 36th in quality of healthcare.
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. no.

Medicare is awesome.. in fact its better than any other insurance out there. Even without a supplement. Its so great that rich people LOVE their medicare.

Medicare if far and away better than what you have now Guaranteed.. even if your employer foots the total bill for your insurance. Its hard pressed to find any insurance in this country that's better than medicare.. when it comes to patient coverage.

Medicare is so great.. its the reason that the left wants to call what they plan to do... "medicare for all".

The problems is...… they can't actually do medicare for all.. without either increasing taxes exponentially... OR reducing medicare as it is today.

That's the rub of medicare for all.
Click to expand...

Medicare today is paid for by taxes. 1.45% of income on average adjusted yearly. Average health insurance cost is 6% and rising. Employers pay roughly 82% of premiums on group plans but that is tax deductible so the taxpayer covers part of that bill. If you want to complain about the projected cost of MFA at least recongnize the trade offs.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Exactly. Medicare as it sits now pays about 80% of all bills. So if someone is on Medicare and is really sick that 20% they have to pay (without a Medigap plan) could easily bankrupt someone.
Click to expand...

Especially those who must pay 17% (or more) of their Social Security (SS) retirement income in Medicare premiums alone. It makes no sense to me that Medicare premiums can exceed 10% of one's SS income. My father's SS is $460/month and his Medicare premium is $135/month - about 29% of his SS retirement income.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I say let's go back to the idea of a "public option" - trying to come up with the perfect "forced public mandate" (one size fits all) is what is not working.
Click to expand...

I don't know that you can get a public option passed. I mean sure Newt Gingrich lauded it in 1995, and then when it was put into ACA he and everyone else at the Heritage Policy Center backed away from it like Deion Sanders.
So if the people that first advocated for it, now view it as the plague how is it ever going to pass?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Especially those who must pay 17% (or more) of their Social Security (SS) retirement income in Medicare premiums alone. It makes no sense to me that Medicare premiums can exceed 10% of one's SS income. My father's SS is $460/month and his Medicare premium is $135/month - about 29% of his SS retirement income.
Click to expand...

Yes there are a lot of people in that very situation who do not qualify for the Medicare buy in program, and while it is like death by 1000 paper-cuts, it is still death.
 
Pound4abrown said:
I don't know that you can get a public option passed. I mean sure Newt Gingrich lauded it in 1995, and then when it was put into ACA he and everyone else at the Heritage Policy Center backed away from it like Deion Sanders.
So if the people that first advocated for it, now view it as the plague how is it ever going to pass?
Click to expand...

They likely view it as assured to let the cat out of the bag, as far as rosy cost savings estimates from a mere option - which can be "assured" (only?") after a total federal takeover. ;)

One can certainly understand higher per patient spending on Medicare (since it covers only the elderly and disabled) but Medicaid should be far better since its risk pool is much younger and most adults work. I would like to see expanded Medicaid become the public option with premiums established as a percentage of household income (multiplied by household size?) up to some reasonable cap.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Yes there are a lot of people in that very situation who do not qualify for the Medicare buy in program, and while it is like death by 1000 paper-cuts, it is still death.
Click to expand...

My father is fortunate since he has TRICARE to cover much of what Medicare does not while my girlfriend lacks that benefit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My father is fortunate since he has TRICARE to cover much of what Medicare does not while my girlfriend lacks that benefit.
Click to expand...

Tricare, is a great gap program for those who earned it. Not designed per say to be a gap plan, but when coupled with Medicare, it is about as good as it gets.
 
jaeger19 said:
It was cheap and affordable and it was terrible compared to todays level of healthcare.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence?

And hospital prices mean pretty much nothing.
Click to expand...

No, it means pretty much everything. Why do you think health insurance premiums are so high?
 
snakestretcher said:
So explain why universal healthcare is cheaper than private medical insurance in every country that has adopted it, and still has the private option. You have the highest per capita spend on healthcare, in the world, by a long way. Yet you rank 36th in quality of healthcare.
Click to expand...


Well..

1. First its not that much cheaper. Sure you don't have the out of pocket expense.. but almost every country has a higher tax for that insurance.
2. Second? Cost shifting. Most UHC countries have a variety of ways that cost shift "healthcare".. into other areas of expense. For example.. They provide public education for providers. Which shifts the cost of healthcare education to public education. Meanwhile in the US.. we don't have provided public education for providers so that cost gets borne by those purchasing healthcare directly. In addition.. there are healthcare costs associated with retirement etc. Other countries.. have retirement systems that allow workers in difficult jobs to retire early.. which saves their health costs. It means their public retirement takes a hit.. but their healthcare is less when a fellow doing manual labor retires years earlier than they do in America.
3. Most UHC countries simply pay their providers less. In fact.. they pay a lot of people less. In America, healthcare is one of the main employers and is in high demand because of the baby boomers. this pushes wages up.. and those wages flow out into the community and raise the wages of everyone else.
4. Greater access. In America.. we want fast care and convenience in our care. WE don't want to wait a month for an MRI.. or more.. we don't want to wait for surgery, and we don't want to have to drive 2-3 hours to get to a hospital to do that surgery. And so because we have so much more access and available beds per person than other countries do.. we have more cost. In most UHC countries.. you don't have the availability of providers and hospitals that we do in the US. And many UHC countries aren't; as large as the US either nor have the need for rural facilities like the US. that makes us less efficient and thus costs go up.


As far as care goes. We rank among the top in the world when it comes to things like timeliness of care, effectiveness of care etc. Why we rank "36th".. is only because we have a small portion of America.. about 10% that don't have health insurance.. and so we get hurt when it comes to "equality of care".. or "efficiency of care".

But actually quality of the healthcare. in our hospitals and clinics? Top notch. Which is why you come to the US to do difficult surgeries.. and not to most of those countries that are supposedly "better" than the us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom