Medicare for all sounds good to me. We need to get rid of the health insurance and drug company vultures that prey upon the lower and middle class people of this country and line the pockets of the rich. I know the rich and their henchmen in our government like to use labels like Socialism to convince people that this kind of stuff is evil. How about lets start useing labels that really matter. If something is Right or Good for the vast majority then that is what we need to do rather then worry about meaningless labels like Socialist or Democrat that Trump supporters like to flood the airways with. Lets worry about what is right and whats good for the vast majority of US citizens. Vote for candidates that work for the people and not just the rich no matter what party they belong to. Baby boomers, like myself, need to come out strong while there are still enough of us around to make a difference. Get smart people!! Don't let the rich tell you what to do.
I do know something about healthcare in countries that have universal coverage. My wife was born in Malta and has relatives there who have a universal healthcare system. I am in constant comunication with some of them through Facebook. In their case they tell me there are long waits for non lifethreatening conditions but life threatening conditions are treated quickly. They dot pay anything other then taxes for their healthcare. My wife's sister waited five years for a knee operation. I know this is only one example and I don't claim universal healthcare would be the same in this country. I think medacare for all would involve a lot of changes to medicare as there are still a lot of cost to me with medicare now. I have been a type one diabetic for forty years and I believe I wouldn't be covered under a Republican health plan. Just my opinion.
Do you think it would be fair to the people who have contributed to Medicare all their lives, while also paying for their other health insurance they had while working, to now pay more in taxes so everybody still working can have the same level of healthcare without paying a comparative share of the burden?
When the monthly cost of each person’s premiums for MFA is calculated, will those that have paid all their lives into the system be exempt, until the premiums exceed what they and their employers have previously paid in? Who will pay the premiums for all in the beginning? Starting with new high school grads only, until the people that graduated one year before start paying their share?
Don't forget that the contributions to Medicare during our working lives were just for the hospitalization costs. We continue to pay for Part B, and supplemental insurance to pay for everything else. Now you want us to either pay for your entry into the plan, or risk getting less than we bargained for because the system cannot handle the increase in demand.
The only way you can provide health insurance for all is to make it a parallel program based on Medicare, that would allow those who are now retired and dependent on the current system to stay in that system. Those that are starting out in the new system wouldn’t have anything to do with Medicare as it is. Everyone in between would be in both systems with varying percentages of coverage based on how old they are. I don’t see any other way it could be implemented in a fair way. In 40 some years, Medicare would be gone and replaced by the new system, covering everybody.
@bizman1951 the links below provide insight into health care systems run by government entities. Who are the "vultures" here?
Marcos Carvajal, a 34-year-old former pitcher for the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, died of pneumonia on Tuesday. He fell sick in December, but the antibiotics needed to treat the illness were hard to find. Drugs for Carvajal eventually were sent from abroad but he relapsed, returned to the hospital on Monday and died the next day.
According to the “actual waiting list,” the record is half a year based on data from the last six months. Another patient waited 195 days for a transcatheter heart valve implantation. However, a wait time of 606 days (maximum) can be expected for this procedure according to the health care institutions’ database.
For other interventions, the actual wait time is:
148 days (almost 5 months) for urologic intervention 4,5 months for major intestinal surgeries 94 days for hip replacement surgery 62 days for major extended spinal surgery
The Times newspaper said a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found tens of thousands of elderly people are left struggling to see because of an NHS cost-cutting drive that relies on them dying before they can qualify for cataract surgery.
The survey has found that the NHS has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago.
The RCO said its survey has found 62 percent of eye units retain policies that require people's vision to have deteriorated below a certain point before surgery is funded.
Back in 2014, Grijalva lived with his wife, Gloria, in Imperial Valley — about two hours from the VA hospital in San Diego. After spending 18 months deployed in Afghanistan, and a year in Iraq, he started having suicidal thoughts.
The VA tried to help him. Early in 2014, the doctors there seemed to get his prescription right. By summer, his psychiatrist had left the VA, but Grijalva was transferred to a nurse practitioner. He missed an appointment in September 2014, according to records provided by the VA, but the new provider agreed to refill his prescription over the phone.
Because San Diego's wait times were so long, under the new Choice program, Grijalva qualified to see a private doctor outside the VA system. He had an initial consultation with the private psychiatrist near his home, but he didn't live to begin treatment. In December 2014, his medication ran out.
The study estimates that 5 million people die every year because of poor-quality health care in low- and middle-income countries. That's significantly more than the 3.6 million people in those countries who die from not having access to care.
It's also five times more than annual deaths from HIV/AIDS (1 million) and three times more than diabetes (1.4 million) in the same countries — although, of course, poor health care for these conditions can also be fatal.
How do you think we should go from a captalistic / profit motive medical industry - doctors, hospitals, pharma, DME, therapist, transport, institutionalize care, etc., etc. - to one that is based on cost controls and still think that we will not feel any consequences or repercussions????
Here is the latest Canada Health Act Annual Report for 2017 - 2018 done by the Minister of Health.
I am just gonna quote (1) of the problems that was revealed in this report -
Yes, they have problems - kind of the reverse of ours - people want, what they want, when they want it especially when their health is involved. So just don't think the grass is always greener.
When I was appointed as federal Minister of Health, the Prime Minister made it clear that I was expected to promote and defend the Canada Health Act, and specifically to eliminate patient charges for services that should be publicly insured. The Canada Health Act, and the values that it represents, form the foundation of our health care system, and much like the foundation of a house, if we allow cracks to form, there is a risk that this building will start to crumble.
This is why the Government of Canada has joined the Government of British Columbia in court to defend against a Charter challenge which seeks to dismantle our publicly funded health care system and allow physicians and private clinics to charge patients whatever the market will bear for medically necessary services. This is also why, over the past year, I have been engaging with my provincial and territorial colleagues on ways we can work together to protect Canadians' access to publicly insured services.
The Problem (Medicare is what the Canadian system is called)
For the most part, Medicare works well and patients receive the care they need without having to pay out of pocket. However, in many parts of the country, patients are being charged for diagnostic services, such as MRI or CT scans, at private clinics. If a patient goes to a hospital for the exact same service, they would not be charged. The federal position has always been that patients should not face charges for medically necessary hospital and physician services – this includes diagnostic services – regardless of where the service is provided. Paying to skip the queue for diagnostic services also allows these individuals to be fast-tracked for any follow up care in the public system. This goes against the fundamental principle of access based on need, not on the ability to pay.
Americans need to wake up to the propaganda being fed us on a daily basis. And I agree, if something is really advantageous and in the best interest of the majority of Americans, we should move toward that.
The old McCarthyism/commie/socialism type stance many politicians are taking right now does NOTHING for the good of the people and only benefits the rich who make their money off of the backs of all of the rest of us!