AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
134
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

134 Views
Message 11 of 99


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

American's support for a single-payer Universal coverage program (now at 70%) has been growing since 2014 and continues to grow.

 

The only opposition is from the far far right who prefer the poor and their children just sicken and die like Nature intended.


70% of the poll numbers support single payer coverage, not 70% of the citizens! Polls lie - polls said Hillary would be President.


Your right, she won the election, just not the electoral college, so she SHOULD be President.  lil' donny only got votes from 26% of registered voters.

 

The Polls did not know they had to factor in Putin and the KGB, but they still showed the race tightening rapidly in the last weeks when Russia went into max overdrive in the 4 swing states and slithered Der Trumper into office.

 

Trump lies. Polls reflect the attitudes held by the population - they just understated the impact of the hate the GOP/Russia conspiracy had unleashed among the non-highschool grad male population, hate that drove those "seldom voters" to the polls in record numbers, 74,000 of them in 4 states to be more precise.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
134
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
128
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

128 Views
Message 12 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

American's support for a single-payer Universal coverage program (now at 70%) has been growing since 2014 and continues to grow.

 

The only opposition is from the far far right who prefer the poor and their children just sicken and die like Nature intended.


That is a very childish and offensive claim. What is wrong with Medicaid taking care of the poor and their children.


Nothing. Why has every elected Republican devoted their time in office to finding ways to REDUCE the care available to the poor from Medicaid and PPACA while cutting taxes for the richest people and Corporations?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
128
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
125
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

125 Views
Message 13 of 99

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

 

Medicare for All, universal health care, or whatever term might be used, would take care of everyone no matter where they reside.Therefore we need to elect those who are willing to take on the task and find solutions. 


Wouldn't some variation on private insurance for the makers and an improved Medicaid for the takers resolve the problem?


Possibly. Suppose that you start with something like Medicare Advantage,a private insurance plan, paid in part with Medicare part A premium, subsidized with federal tax money, and go from there. MA policies differ by company, and some have additional premiums for various levels of coverage and benefits. Some even allow in and out of network coverage. MA plan also include a prescription drug plan.

 

Something similar to MA might work for a lot of people, especially those with low incomes. After all, it was developed for seniors with limited budgets who cannot afford, or do not want to pay for a higher cost supplemental plan, but cannot afford the 20% coverage gap either. 

 

So what would you suggest we do to keep private insurance and still get universal coverage? Isn't that called Obamacare?

 

 I suggest that we leave the private insurance industry alone and let the government develop only a welfare form of coverage for whoever they see as needing and deserving.

 

Forget using the word Medicare - that is for retirees.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
125
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
140
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

140 Views
Message 14 of 99

@unbarch64 wrote IP So....IF the People want a universal health care system that operates for the general welfare [that's their welfare by definition] should their government do the will of the People?  That's not a poll question, it's for you to answer.  Yes or No.

 

That would be "Yes". The use of "Medicare for All" as a way to express Universal single payer health care is excellent - it conveys the question in terms the vast majority of Americans can understand and avoids all the negative buzz words like "European style".

 

With only one payer (to the providers) we can eliminate the hundreds of medical payment forms AND the nonsense of the "Charge Master" the provider uses to maximize profits and replace it with the reasonable and proper reimbursements that have been negotiated between providers and insurance companies AND the VA, which does a fantastic job of negotiating reasonable cost drugs for their customers. The insurers pay the providers based on the ACTUAL cost of delivering the care plus a reasonable profit and the balance of what is being paid today goes to the Government who uses it to subsidize insurance for the uninsured and underinsured indigent population and cover it's very low overhead. The subsidies go back to the insurance companies who can attract the business of the newly insured.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
140
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
137
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

137 Views
Message 15 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

 

Medicare for All, universal health care, or whatever term might be used, would take care of everyone no matter where they reside.Therefore we need to elect those who are willing to take on the task and find solutions. 


Wouldn't some variation on private insurance for the makers and an improved Medicaid for the takers resolve the problem?


Possibly. Suppose that you start with something like Medicare Advantage,a private insurance plan, paid in part with Medicare part A premium, subsidized with federal tax money, and go from there. MA policies differ by company, and some have additional premiums for various levels of coverage and benefits. Some even allow in and out of network coverage. MA plan also include a prescription drug plan.

 

Something similar to MA might work for a lot of people, especially those with low incomes. After all, it was developed for seniors with limited budgets who cannot afford, or do not want to pay for a higher cost supplemental plan, but cannot afford the 20% coverage gap either. 

 

So what would you suggest we do to keep private insurance and still get universal coverage? Isn't that called Obamacare?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
137
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
147
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

147 Views
Message 16 of 99

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


 


What is done in Texas and Florida has nothing to do with Rs in Congress - it has to do with the Legislatures of those States. Do you see it a federal responsibility to control the actions of the State Legislatures?


Oh, but it does! The "no" states, and Texas in particular, have more people who are uninsured than states that expanded Medicaid. And now, the Trump R's want to strip down the expansion funding leaving "yes" states to search for ways to make up the deficit.

 

Medicare for All, universal health care, or whatever term might be used, would take care of everyone no matter where they reside.Therefore we need to elect those who are willing to take on the task and find solutions. 


Wouldn't some variation on private insurance for the makers and an improved Medicaid for the takers resolve the problem?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
147
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
161
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

161 Views
Message 17 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:

@afisher wrote:

   Reminder:   the GOP are intent on removing the demand that people with pre-existing conditions can be denied affordable healthcare insurance.     Only the really stupid will deny that every institution that offers healthcare insurance will downgrade the coverage they offer.

   No whining when they come for Medicare as well.  OK?


I guy is in his mid forties, successful in he career, lives in a great condo and drives an expensive car. He has never paid a nickle into insurance - money that your have helped cover the expenses of others (the basic insurance concept).

 

Now he is diagnosed with something nasty and expensive. Who should cover his expenses - those that he chose to not participate with for all these years??

 

Alternately, if the same guy had been paying into an insurance plan I'm all for legislation saying that he cannot now be dropped.


Solution is to stop allowing parasites instead of increasing their numbers as Der Trumper just did by eliminating the mandate for coverage under PPACA.

 

Good to see you agree with a key provision of PPACA (no dropping customers if they get sick) that is not in any Republican alternative.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
161
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
158
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

158 Views
Message 18 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:


 


What is done in Texas and Florida has nothing to do with Rs in Congress - it has to do with the Legislatures of those States. Do you see it a federal responsibility to control the actions of the State Legislatures?


Oh, but it does! The "no" states, and Texas in particular, have more people who are uninsured than states that expanded Medicaid. And now, the Trump R's want to strip down the expansion funding leaving "yes" states to search for ways to make up the deficit.

 

Medicare for All, universal health care, or whatever term might be used, would take care of everyone no matter where they reside.Therefore we need to elect those who are willing to take on the task and find solutions. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
158
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
166
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

166 Views
Message 19 of 99

@CriticalThinking wrote:

RK said, "Yes, those without insurance or with junk insurance get a free ride at the ER."


Yes he did.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
166
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
156
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

156 Views
Message 20 of 99

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

Yes, it has worked quite well for me. If you want insurance for the poor, we have Medicaid - expand it.


It does not need expanding as we have care for all, and you are paying for it, and you have high cost Insurance that does not work well for you but you do not even realize that. How sad, but points out why the US has trouble solving the problem.

 

What is wrong with allowing people who are happy with their insurance coverage to keep it and provide the services you want for the poor using Medicaid?

 

Forget the dramatic "how sad" and deal with my point. I may be wrong, if so, explain without the drama.


 


From you answers it is quite clear you do not understand how insurance works so you just go round and round with never and end is sight. A lot of people have junk insurance which cost little and supplies little coverage. When these people have need for their insurance they find out it covers little, and they go to the default ER care part of the system which the rest of us pay for. An example is using Excess Major Medical Insurance as a primary policy. If you Insurance was good Insurance and supplied full coverage you can keep it. My point was you paid to much for it due to people  not having good insurance. Medicaid is an attempt to supply some decent coverage to the poor so they are not in the ER Care, and that saves all of us money. The far right oppose Medicaid. You just saw Trump allow junk policies to again be sold as primary coverage.


I fully understand how insurance works - I buy it, I use it when and if needed.

 

Yes, those without insurance or with junk insurance get a free ride at the ER. That is something that needs fixing without screwing up the existing insurance system.


There are 2 ways to fix it. Everyone has medical coverage. Medi Care for all., or use the Gov. of GA approach. Let them die in the streets. The far right favor the Gov. of Ga. approach which by the way in the long run is more expense that Media Care for all approach. You do not understand Insurance by the way and you have proved that. We are just circling so that will not stop. I have tried to explain Insurance to you, but have failed so I am ending any further back and forth on this thread with you.


What is wrong with simply leaving the people who want to purchase their own insurance alone and expand the Medicaid system to help the poor?

 

Can you get off your obsession with what you think I do not understand and deal with that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
156
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors