Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
184
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

184 Views
Message 51 of 99

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


I hope you realize with this post you just gave the reason everyone has to be insured to make any health care system work. It is also why you get the cheapest costs. When you have a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty, and then want to purchase insurance which if allowed would raise the costs to everyone else in the rating pool. When everyone is covered there is a rule you can not drop people, nor can you have claim limits. Everything is used in rating the cost. Nice to see you are for including everyone in the rating pool. That will lower the cost of Insurance. I am sure you understand that under the present Health Care system everyone can get care and we are all paying for it, and yes there are some low end people who pay no taxes that get care through the ER section of Health Care.


I have been enrolled in health insurance since the late '50s. Everyone was not insured and it worked very well.

 

a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty

When did you hear me talk about that?


When all are not enrolled you pay more, and you have been paying more since the late 50. On Group Insurance if there is not the % enrolled in the employers plan as called for the policy does not go into effect. The Insurance Co rates the plan based on the % of employees who the employer tells them will be enrolled (large Cos.) or % rated for in the class the policy falls into by the Insurance Co. The fewer enrolled the higher the rate. Read you post as you gave the reason the pre ex is needed. With out the pre ex people would not purchase health Insurance until they needed it, and that would make it to expense. One reason we have problems with health insurance is people do not understand how it works.


Well, I do understand that it has worked fine for me for many years.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
184
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
196
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

196 Views
Message 52 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


I hope you realize with this post you just gave the reason everyone has to be insured to make any health care system work. It is also why you get the cheapest costs. When you have a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty, and then want to purchase insurance which if allowed would raise the costs to everyone else in the rating pool. When everyone is covered there is a rule you can not drop people, nor can you have claim limits. Everything is used in rating the cost. Nice to see you are for including everyone in the rating pool. That will lower the cost of Insurance. I am sure you understand that under the present Health Care system everyone can get care and we are all paying for it, and yes there are some low end people who pay no taxes that get care through the ER section of Health Care.


I have been enrolled in health insurance since the late '50s. Everyone was not insured and it worked very well.

 

a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty

When did you hear me talk about that?


When all are not enrolled you pay more, and you have been paying more since the late 50. On Group Insurance if there is not the % enrolled in the employers plan as called for the policy does not go into effect. The Insurance Co rates the plan based on the % of employees who the employer tells them will be enrolled (large Cos.) or % rated for in the class the policy falls into by the Insurance Co. The fewer enrolled the higher the rate. Read you post as you gave the reason the pre ex is needed. With out the pre ex people would not purchase health Insurance until they needed it, and that would make it to expense. One reason we have problems with health insurance is people do not understand how it works.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
196
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
213
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

213 Views
Message 53 of 99

@john258 wrote:


I hope you realize with this post you just gave the reason everyone has to be insured to make any health care system work. It is also why you get the cheapest costs. When you have a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty, and then want to purchase insurance which if allowed would raise the costs to everyone else in the rating pool. When everyone is covered there is a rule you can not drop people, nor can you have claim limits. Everything is used in rating the cost. Nice to see you are for including everyone in the rating pool. That will lower the cost of Insurance. I am sure you understand that under the present Health Care system everyone can get care and we are all paying for it, and yes there are some low end people who pay no taxes that get care through the ER section of Health Care.


I have been enrolled in health insurance since the late '50s. Everyone was not insured and it worked very well.

 

a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty

When did you hear me talk about that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
213
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
232
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

232 Views
Message 54 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.


I hope you realize with this post you just gave the reason everyone has to be insured to make any health care system work. It is also why you get the cheapest costs. When you have a lot of guys like you talk about Insurance Cos. have to have a pre ex to  prevent them from purchasing Insurance after they are diagnosed with something nasty, and then want to purchase insurance which if allowed would raise the costs to everyone else in the rating pool. When everyone is covered there is a rule you can not drop people, nor can you have claim limits. Everything is used in rating the cost. Nice to see you are for including everyone in the rating pool. That will lower the cost of Insurance. I am sure you understand that under the present Health Care system everyone can get care and we are all paying for it, and yes there are some low end people who pay no taxes that get care through the ER section of Health Care.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
232
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
237
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

237 Views
Message 55 of 99

@GailL1 wrote:

@umbarch64

 

 

The actual poll (of less than 3000 people) may have born the concept of "policy" within the poll but NO news media actually picked it up - find even one that included the concept or term of "policy" in their analysis of the poll - even the link that began this thread mentions "policy" only as a descriptive term in the concept of the actual poll.  Note the title and how others reporting this word their titles: 

 

Polls are a sampling not a referendum. A sampling of 3000 may or may not have been adequate for a high degree of validity. Depends.  The question specified 'policy'.   Policy means "a course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.".[Webster's]  Legislation is required to implement that course of action.  It will result from a detailed analysis and considered decisions made by legislators.  They 'should' do it with only the general welfare of the People in mind.  That's iffy considering the current critters.

 

You and I seem to be 180 degrees apart on our approach to this matter.  Do you agree that health care is a right just as is life itself and that this Nation should have a universal health care system that operates for the general welfare of the People.  Yes or No.  Please read very carefully.  There are no politics here....just a philosophical conviction.

 

I understand you to say all details must be resolved before legislators can proceed with doing the People's will.  I say that is not feasible.  Such an approach will inevitably result in 'analysis paralysis' and nothing will get done.  For very obvious reasons. 

 

I sincerely hope your intent is to arrive at a rational solution and not stymie its accomplishment.  We may need to clear up some semantics so we end up on the same page. 

 

As I see it, 'Medicare for all' is a convenient way to present a concept to the American People so they can understand what is being considered.  I think that is why the word 'policy' was used in the poll. It was a regognition that the People should concur on a 'course of action' before proceeding into legislation.  That would assure that legislators had a clear understanding of the 'will' of the People so they could do it.

 

Without a concept they will have no directive from the People defining a desired course of action.  I won't settle for a poll on that but a referendum would do the job.

 

 

Poll: Majority of Democrats and Republicans support Medicare for all

 

The wording of the question asked specifically included the word 'policy'.  It is inseparable from the poll results. 

 

Yes, I agree and have already said that the total "concept" of Medicare for All needs to be defined before anyone can really understand its full meaning and thus be able to give a good decision about it. 

 

And I agree with that [I think].  No one should form an opinion about something they know nothing about OR are infufficiently informed about OR badly informed about.  Presenting such an opinion as fact is irresponsible and reprehensible. I'll add that it is impossible to arrive at an accurate bottom line without incorporating all associated costs and associated savings. Line items.  Nobody is doing that!  An agreed upon concept of where we are going is needed to start it all.

 

Policy development is all about bringing together information, data and all stakeholders.  Then through rigorous and objective assessment of data, hopefully based on scientific agreement or debated under such, perhaps a policy can be derived.

 

See....here is where semantics may creep in.  I think I agree....BUT...All the stuff you need has to come from trying to meet a defined goal.... a concept, policy, however you wish to word it.

 

Before policy can become a reality - a fluid concept has to be designed - then, of course the policy has to be constantly reevaluated for workability, adaptability, etc.

 

Well....sort of, but not entirely.  I say the concept of universal health care for every one in the US is something to be agreed to by its citizenry. In my view, the people have a right to it just as they have a right to life itself.  Once agreed to, the People's government must then implement it in the most economic and equitable way possible. No ifs, what abouts, or but thens.  It's their job. 

 

There is a reason I say that that way.  That is what the Constitution says governments are established to do the will of the people....and if they don't, the People can do away with them and put another in its place that will do as they are told. That's paraphrased a bit, but I think you will find it's accurately stated.

 

I have also shown in my post here in this thread how science is sometimes overstepped by various special interest groups who can yell louder, in money or in deed, especially in our form of government. 

 

Yes, science is clearly disregarded in favor of special interests.  That practice is not confined to health care.  Such practices imperil the existence of the entire human race.  I cannot think of any legitimate reason anyone should tolerate such a thing or make excuses for it.  Seems we agree.

 

Setting a health care policy should be based on what works, what works for the least amount of money - it is not about ANYTHING regardless of want that is not scientific based.

 

What I have proposed before has amounted to basic universal health care similar to that provided by Medicare. Everything has to be paid for. Taxes are one way.  Insurance is another.  Personal contributions to a government administered trust is another.  Medicare is an insurance of sorts. What works best to accomplish a stated goal for the least cost is what we need. 

 

My objection to a "Medicare for All" concept is that I see not effort to control health care cost under our present system and therefore wonder if it could ever be done under any health care system that would be derived.  I just want there to be some legitimate discussion on the concept - getting everybody on the same page about it for a real discussion and analysis - otherwise, polls like these mean little to nothing.

 

Well....I agree with you on the control of health care costs. Cost are out of hand partly because industries apart from health care have introduced their costs to the ledger. You don't need my input on that, you know.  Inevitably it will all come back to governmental involvement and there's the real rub.  I say the government and the People are one and the same here in this nation.  So...the People have a right to say what all that should be.  I say all that should be in their interests or it shouldn't be.  It's that simple.  The People should not distrust OR have reason to distrust their government....now should they?  IF they do, the reason should be eliminated from the matter. We can talk more about that before November.

 

Maybe we do need a referendum so the People do get the say-so they deserve.  I'd go for that.

 

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.

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
237
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
266
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

266 Views
Message 56 of 99

@john258 wrote:

 

You are correct that costs are out of control. One big reason is we never talk about the entire health care system costs, and until that is done you will cost shift for the most part, and that is what has been happening. Women should have the right to choose, and that includes birth control options as in the long run this will reduce costs to the entire system.

 

A person should have the right to choose when to  end their life, but that should be subject to a set of rules for providers so we do not help people end their lives for the wrong reasons. There are states who have such laws and that would be a starting point.

 

The basic starting point in any health care system is all are covered. A system starting point could be a medicare for all (under 65) approach as we know medicare works. There will be cost savings as we get rid of the ER care part of the system. There are experts who can work on controlling costs, and paying the total bill. Here is one small idea. When you get a drivers license, or buy a car included in that cost is a Private Passenger Auto Medical policy. The money goes into the medical fund and helps cover the medical costs from auto accidents. This can be rated by state, and include motorcycles, large trucks etc. The experts  could figure all of this out. AARP has people on its staff that could serve, plus medical people, Univ. etc.



@john258 - Well said, and I also agree. 

 

Over the years, there have been different concepts of what "Medicare for All" might look like, using the current Medicare system as a starting point. We've even had a lot of discussions on this forum on the topic.

 

Whatever it might be would require tax support just like Medicare, and might even include supplemental options, just like Medicare, to increase one's coverage. It might also be partially, or in some cases, wholly, subsidized to work similar to a Medicare Advantage plan.

 

But whatever the concept, it won't go anywhere until we get people elected to Congress who are willing to work on solving the problem. Congress has the wherewithall to gather all of the data it needs, and access to some of the most brilliant minds in the country. Don't tell me that they can't do it. The problem has been that they won't do it.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
266
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
289
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

289 Views
Message 57 of 99

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Our Republicans have done such a bangup job caring for the needs of Americans our kids are suffering from such anxiety about their futures we have an epidemic of drugs and suicide.

 

This notion that holding growth in the minimum wage at HALF the rate of inflation for the last half-centruy means that it is the Workers fault putting in 60 hour weeks cannot provide their basic necessities is simply evil.

 

The only ones who have seen a real improvement in their standard of living are those who can game the system by manimpulating other people's money into their pockets while producing noting of value themselves.

 

Time to put the REAL "makers" back at the top of our priorities, and let those who rode their backs to riches go back to paying a fair share for the ride.

 

Providing for the health care of all Americans even if those who can afford more pay more is long overdue. No other democracy on earth allows illness to cause personal bankrupcy.

 

Why do Republicans demand the poor must suffer so the rich get richer?


Since the deplorable conditions you see as being this terrible country were caused by the government - do you really want to put health care in the hands of that same government?

 

Or is the creation of your one Party, strongly centralized government owning and distribution all the money fit into your health care solution?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
289
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
286
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

286 Views
Message 58 of 99

@gordyfl wrote:

 

 

70% of Americans support "Medicare" for All. It's quite different than your "VA for All" plan. Quite different.


Yes, quite different - Medicare is for those who pay into it - what about everybody else???

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
286
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
282
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

282 Views
Message 59 of 99

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
282
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
271
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

271 Views
Message 60 of 99

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

 

 

My objection to a "Medicare for All" concept is that I see not effort to control health care cost under our present system and therefore wonder if it could ever be done under any health care system that would be derived. 

 

There's no greater way to "control costs" than to have a single payor.


I believe you mean "single authority". In other words, have all our health care under the authority of the central government.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
271
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