Reply
Regular Contributor

MEDICARE

A.jpghs.jpg

Honored Social Butterfly

Now there was an interesting transition.

0 Kudos
533 Views
0
Report
Regular Social Butterfly

Why didn't Obama and his Democrat congress invent "Medicare for all?"  Were they too busy inventing gayriage?

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
551 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Why didn't Obama and his Democrat congress invent "Medicare for all?"  Were they too busy inventing gayriage?

 

_________________________________

 

 

The same reason the Republicans didn't repeal "Obamacare" when they controlled both Houses in Congress - Follow the Money.


The insurance companies spend big on campaign donations.


Blue Cross/Blue Shield alone spent $2,290,318 in 2017-2018. 47% going to Democrats and 53% going to Republicans.


https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=F09++


Let's ADD in the amount of money health insurance companies spend on lobbying...


health insurance lobbying 2017.jpg

 

 


Health insurers spent big money on lobbying in early 2017


Health insurers spent millions on Capitol Hill in early 2017 as Republican lawmakers fought to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.


The five largest publicly traded insurers spent a combined $6.2 million in the first three months of this year, according to government lobbying disclosures.


Insurers lobbied over regulations and programs to stabilize the individual health insurance market and keep it afloat as Republicans worked to dismantle the ACA.


The health insurance companies encouraged lawmakers to preserve the ACA's individual mandate and cost-sharing subsides if they repealed the healthcare law. Experts predict that fewer people will enroll in coverage and the individual market would collapse if those protections are eliminated.
Nearly all the insurers lobbied to repeal the loathed annual tax on health insurance companies. That tax, which is used to fund the ACA subsidies for low-income enrollees, was delayed in 2017.
Insurers also spent big money over the 2018 Medicare Advantage rates.


http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170421/NEWS/170429956


The Democratic Party is Changing


On average, senators who don't support Bernie Sanders' single-payer plan received more money from insurance companies.
Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill that would overhaul America's health-insurance system. The Medicare for All Act of 2017 would turn the American government into the country's only payer—besides individuals—for health care. While the bill has virtually no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Congress, it's still symbolically important because it shows the Democrats' shift to the left on health care.


Case in point: The last time Bernie Sanders introduced a similar bill, in 2013, he wasn't able to garner a single co-sponsor; this time, 16 Democratic senators signed on as co-sponsors.


What's driving this change of heart?


According to University of Southern California political scientist Christian Grose, many of these co-signers are thought to have presidential ambitions and therefore may be "trying to peel off some support from Bernie Sanders voters were they to run in 2020.


https://psmag.com/news/health-insurance-senate-money-connections

 

0 Kudos
526 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

Why didn't Obama and his Democrat congress invent "Medicare for all?"  Were they too busy inventing gayriage?


Could be.  Now we are working on gay adoption and "main streaming" the gay lifestyle. Seems to be working.  Just watch a bit of TV and you will see openly gay characters now. Just go to a political rally and you will see lots of rainbow flags. Well, not the Republican rallies. They tend to be uncontrollably violent. 

 

On the other hand, every time some Republican beats up a gay person, people like Tim Cook donate more money and more lobbyists to the cause. I would say what Obama started is becoming another wave on its own. Wouldn't you?

0 Kudos
545 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Any time that Medicare for All or any other national single payer health care plan is mentioned, the Right goes rabid in arguing against it, regardless of the statistical comparisons between what we now have and other countries that have national health care plans.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Any time that Medicare for All or any other national single payer health care plan is mentioned, the Right goes rabid in arguing against it, regardless of the statistical comparisons between what we now have and other countries that have national health care plans.


I hope you will not consider this to be "rabid" (actually, it is "truth") but Medicare is a program that people pay into all their working lives and collect on at age 65. How does that relate to you "cradle to the grave" thinking?

 

If you want socialized medicine, say you want socialized medicine. Don't hide behind an existing, successful program that has no connection to what you want.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

I hope you will not consider this to be "rabid" (actually, it is "truth") but Medicare is a program that people pay into all their working lives and collect on at age 65. How does that relate to you "cradle to the grave" thinking?

 

If you want socialized medicine, say you want socialized medicine. Don't hide behind an existing, successful program that has no connection to what you want


Fine, we will call it the "Universal Health Care Program Modeled after the Canadian System" and then implement it. The good news is that, no matter what we call it, it will save thousands of American lives and prevent much suffering.  

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

I hope you will not consider this to be "rabid" (actually, it is "truth") but Medicare is a program that people pay into all their working lives and collect on at age 65. How does that relate to you "cradle to the grave" thinking?

 

If you want socialized medicine, say you want socialized medicine. Don't hide behind an existing, successful program that has no connection to what you want


Fine, we will call it the "Universal Health Care Program Modeled after the Canadian System" and then implement it. The good news is that, no matter what we call it, it will save thousands of American lives and prevent much suffering.  


And Cost A Lot Less

 

No Obcene Profit Built In

 

No Obcene Dividend Payments to Shareholders who do nothing

 

No Obcene Administrative Costs built in including Multi-million dollar CEO Salaries

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Honored Social Butterfly


@mickstuder wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

I hope you will not consider this to be "rabid" (actually, it is "truth") but Medicare is a program that people pay into all their working lives and collect on at age 65. How does that relate to you "cradle to the grave" thinking?

 

If you want socialized medicine, say you want socialized medicine. Don't hide behind an existing, successful program that has no connection to what you want


Fine, we will call it the "Universal Health Care Program Modeled after the Canadian System" and then implement it. The good news is that, no matter what we call it, it will save thousands of American lives and prevent much suffering.  


And Cost A Lot Less

 

No Obcene Profit Built In

 

No Obcene Dividend Payments to Shareholders who do nothing

 

No Obcene Administrative Costs built in including Multi-million dollar CEO Salaries

 

 

 

 


IMHO, we'll still have insurance companies, but there is no reason we have to continue to put up with those points you raised. The Germans did it quite nicely - the only way management compensation can be increased is if the company wins a greater market share. The only way they can do that is by offering a superior product or a more reasonable price. Neither of those is a bad thing, but given the track record of our insurance industry over the past 50 years, there will be no pay hikes for a very long time.

Honored Social Butterfly

Anyone taken the time to look up the WAIT time to see a doctor or specialist in Canada?
0 Kudos
245 Views
5
Report
Regular Contributor

Yes I have ... the average wait time in Canada is much less than it is in the U S and the doctors in the U S have to wait for the apprpval of the insurers in addtion to the the intial wait .. I just experienced it for my sugery weeks ago. No such approval is needed in Canada.i.jpg

Honored Social Butterfly

You will always find some opponent of healthcare-for-all cherry-picking some story of an indidual who had a so-called bad experience. You've used Canadian healthcare. I've seen it first hand. I remember everytime I'd be heading home to the States I'd be asking myself "Why can't we have that?"

 

I've must have spoken to a hundred Canadians about our healthcare vs theirs. They always smile. They know. You know. I know.

0 Kudos
598 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Soosie wrote:
Anyone taken the time to look up the WAIT time to see a doctor or specialist in Canada?

Yep, and they're much better than the wait times for 43 MILLION Americans who have no health insurance. In fact, if you factor in those Americans with no, or inadequate coverage, Canada does much MUCH better than the USA.

 

The Canadians measure time until treatment is COMPLETED, the US only counts the time until the treatment BEGINS, and there's a bunch of other statistical differences that are no problem for the Canadians but provide our GOPers with ill-informed reasons to pretend our system is much better IN TERMS OF WAIT TIMES. But of course if you cannot AFFORD the treatement in America, the wait very often ends in the grave.

 

But bottom line: THERE ARE NO LINES OF CANADIANS WAITING TO CROSS INTO AMERICA TO RECEIVE HEALTH CARE. but there ARE busloads of US seniors traveling to Canada (and Mexico) regularily to receive AFFORDABLE medications.

 

Republicans have given Americans the THIRD BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN NORTH AMERICA! Time to put someone else in charge, doncha think?

 

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

@Soosie wrote:
Anyone taken the time to look up the WAIT time to see a doctor or specialist in Canada?

Yep, and they're much better than the wait times for 43 MILLION Americans who have no health insurance. In fact, if you factor in those Americans with no, or inadequate coverage, Canada does much MUCH better than the USA.

The 43 million uninsured Americans (I thought Obamacare was supposed to solve this problem?) can pay cash here at the doctor and get serviced quickly. Not so quick in Canada.

"Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 21.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment"

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2017

 

The Canadians measure time until treatment is COMPLETED, the US only counts the time until the treatment BEGINS, and there's a bunch of other statistical differences that are no problem for the Canadians but provide our GOPers with ill-informed reasons to pretend our system is much better IN TERMS OF WAIT TIMES. But of course if you cannot AFFORD the treatement in America, the wait very often ends in the grave.

 

But bottom line: THERE ARE NO LINES OF CANADIANS WAITING TO CROSS INTO AMERICA TO RECEIVE HEALTH CARE. but there ARE busloads of US seniors traveling to Canada (and Mexico) regularily to receive AFFORDABLE medications.

 

TORONTO — When Sharon Shamblaw was diagnosed last summer with a form of blood cancer that could only be treated with a particular stem cell transplant, the search for a donor began. A Toronto hospital, 100 miles east of her home in St. Mary's, Ontario, and one of three facilities in the province that could provide the life-saving treatment, had an eight-month waiting list for transplants.

Four months after her diagnosis, Shamblaw headed to Buffalo, New York, for treatment. But it was too late. She died at the age of 46, leaving behind a husband and three children, as detailed by the Toronto Star.

 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for...

 


 

Honored Social Butterfly

Anyone taken the time to look up the WAIT time to see a doctor or specialist in Canada?

 

I don't have to look it up. I've been to doctor offices and hospitals in Toronto. I didn't recognize any difference in wait times. In fact, a couple of times the wait times seemed shorter in Canada - at least in Toronto. 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

I hope you will not consider this to be "rabid" (actually, it is "truth") but Medicare is a program that people pay into all their working lives and collect on at age 65. How does that relate to you "cradle to the grave" thinking?

 

If you want socialized medicine, say you want socialized medicine. Don't hide behind an existing, successful program that has no connection to what you want


Fine, we will call it the "Universal Health Care Program Modeled after the Canadian System" and then implement it. The good news is that, no matter what we call it, it will save thousands of American lives and prevent much suffering.  


rk delights in using semantics as a replacement for logic. True, Medicare works because it's "pre-paid" all during your working life, and you can't "opt out". But Medicare for all works because it requires no additional money (everyone keeps paying their health insurance, improved efficiency provides the money for 43 million Americans still uninsured) and nobody can "opt out".

 

An additional benefit will be people surviving to be able to collect Medicare will be in much better health and require LESS from the system, and the system will cost LESS because of the efficiencies brought about by Universal coverage single payer.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

I hope you will not consider this to be "rabid" (actually, it is "truth") but Medicare is a program that people pay into all their working lives and collect on at age 65. How does that relate to you "cradle to the grave" thinking?

 

If you want socialized medicine, say you want socialized medicine. Don't hide behind an existing, successful program that has no connection to what you want


Fine, we will call it the "Universal Health Care Program Modeled after the Canadian System" and then implement it. The good news is that, no matter what we call it, it will save thousands of American lives and prevent much suffering.  


rk delights in using semantics as a replacement for logic. True, Medicare works because it's "pre-paid" all during your working life, and you can't "opt out". But Medicare for all works because it requires no additional money (everyone keeps paying their health insurance, improved efficiency provides the money for 43 million Americans still uninsured) and nobody can "opt out".

 

An additional benefit will be people surviving to be able to collect Medicare will be in much better health and require LESS from the system, and the system will cost LESS because of the efficiencies brought about by Universal coverage single payer.


It is hardly semantics to point out that you want to take a program in which people earn their benefits and make it a program where people only have to need their benefits.

 

And it is hardly semantics to point out the folly of thinking all the additional costs will be covered by "bureaucratic efficiency".

 

You want socialized medicine. Why not just honestly go for that rather than sneaking up on it by perverting the name of an existing and successful program.

0 Kudos
589 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

 

And it is hardly semantics to point out the folly of thinking all the additional costs will be covered by "bureaucratic efficiency".

 

You want socialized medicine. Why not just honestly go for that rather than sneaking up on it by perverting the name of an existing and successful program.


It is hardly semantics to point out that you want to take a program in which people earn their benefits and make it a program where people only have to need their benefits.

If you want to call it Socialized Medicine I am fine with that but I would point out that the "current program" is called simply "Medicare".  The new name proposed is "Medicare for ALL".  A small distinction but one which easily differentiates between before and after the expansion.  You seem to be physically incapable of recognizing the two new words.  Perhaps your own plan does not include vision?

 

Perhaps a longer name would be good. Something like "The plan which is less expensive and has better outcomes than the old system"? But then, Conservatives do not care about costs or outcomes, only bumper sticker slogans and that does not fit.  I guess we will have to stick with "Medicare for all", eh? 

0 Kudos
576 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

And it is hardly semantics to point out the folly of thinking all the additional costs will be covered by "bureaucratic efficiency".

 

You want socialized medicine. Why not just honestly go for that rather than sneaking up on it by perverting the name of an existing and successful program.


It is hardly semantics to point out that you want to take a program in which people earn their benefits and make it a program where people only have to need their benefits.

If you want to call it Socialized Medicine I am fine with that but I would point out that the "current program" is called simply "Medicare".  The new name proposed is "Medicare for ALL".  A small distinction but one which easily differentiates between before and after the expansion.  You seem to be physically incapable of recognizing the two new words.  Perhaps your own plan does not include vision?

The current program is one which recipients have paid into and is age specific. Totally conceptually different from your vision.

 

Perhaps a longer name would be good. Something like "The plan which is less expensive and has better outcomes than the old system"? But then, Conservatives do not care about costs or outcomes, only bumper sticker slogans and that does not fit.  I guess we will have to stick with "Medicare for all", eh? 

Since it is your goal to provide for those who have not paid in and without the age discrimination of Medicare, why not just call it "Medicaid For All Who Need It"??


 

0 Kudos
566 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png