Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
197
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

197 Views
Message 1 of 45

@Roxanna35 wrote:

As to why Obamacare failed  It failed because it did not force people into  this program whether they liked it or not. Cost contronls were not a part of this program. and perhaps other things that I now forget.

I have another questions if the premiums for thie Medicare for all is implemented, how are they going to deal with Head of Househod for a family of 4. disregarding of income

I they cap the ammount theat have to pay. that would not be a good solution.
In the example provided it doesn't say whether this person is a single person, married person and has dedpendents under him   400. a month would not cove or barely cover the costs of a full family.

And what would happen to Medicare if this other plan fails like the Obamacare has?

The example that I gave you was for a single young professional only, and that was the capped level for that income. We don't know what the premiums are going to be yet. Those have not been determined. We only know how they will be capped, and how they will deal with those who fall within or below the poverty level.

 


 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
197
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

204 Views
Message 2 of 45

As to why Obamacare failed  It failed because it did not force people into  this program whether they liked it or not. Cost contronls were not a part of this program. and perhaps other things that I now forget.

I have another questions if the premiums for thie Medicare for all is implemented, how are they going to deal with Head of Househod for a family of 4. disregarding of income

I they cap the ammount theat have to pay. that would not be a good solution.
In the example provided it doesn't say whether this person is a single person, married person and has dedpendents under him   400. a month would not cove or barely cover the costs of a full family.

And what would happen to Medicare if this other plan fails like the Obamacare has?

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
204
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
214
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

214 Views
Message 3 of 45

What makes single payer universal health care plans successful is that all are in the same pool, from the youngest to the oldest. The young have the least expenditures on health care, the old have the most, having everyone in the same pool averages it all out and it is much cheaper per person than what we spend today. Having everyone in the same pool brings great bargaining power to be used with all prescriptions and with all providers. Having everyone in the same pool brings greater choices for doctors and providers.

 

Here is a list of countries that have universal health care plans, it's much larger than many realize. America falls behind the vast majority of these nations in health care statistics:

 

Australia ... Austria ... Belgium ... Canada ... Chili ... Czech Rep ... Denmark ... Finland ... France ... Germany ... Greece ... Hungary ... Iceland ... Israel ... Italy ... Japan ... Luxembourg ... S. Korea ... Spain ... Sweden ... Switzerland ... Turkey ... UK

 

When will we ever learn ........


Democrats in 2020
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
214
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
229
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

229 Views
Message 4 of 45

@Roxanna35 wrote:

 

What makes you so sure that the younger generation just like they did with Obamacare will  want to be in any  kind of insurance if they have to pay a premium. and that premium would have to go up because when all are insured that cost may or not come down. and also let's not forget the ones, "The Goverment will not shove anything down my throat"  citizens that will not go with you on Medicare for  All

 

Presently, the younger generation seems to favor Bernie or Elizabeth Warren, and both support M4All. Any of these universal coverage plans would be just that, universal. You cannot opt out. The premiums will be deducted from the payroll checks.

 

Under Med for Amer, the deduction is capped at 8% of monthly income. Say a young professional is earning $5000 per month, their maximum would be capped at $400 per month. That is reasonable given the benefits and coverage provided under the plan. They would not need a separate dental plan or vision plan or LTC plan since it's all rolled into one package.

 

Of course there will be dissenters and they will likely challenge the law in court. That's just the way it goes these days. But Obamacare was challenged several times and not overturned. So there's that.

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
229
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
242
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

242 Views
Message 5 of 45

@GailL1 wrote:

@john258  or anybody -

 

Why should we be trying to establish a  (societal) LongTerm care benefit within or separate from a healthcare system when a lot of people will not have to use it or will even need it? 

 

This is just another way for the government to push more of this type of cost, which we already pay for in our state and federal taxes (Medicaid), onto us.

 

We already have a way to provide for the LTC needs of the poor - Medicaid.

Well, except in New Mexico where they use it for school crossing guards!

 

What is wrong with people who are not poor fending for themselves in this area?  Either you spend down and then qualify for Medicaid or it just reduces or eliminates what you can pass onto any heirs. 


For the same reason we build and maintain Public Education - the SOCIETY benefits even if the childless refuse to see the connection between a skilled workforce and their property tax.

 

The only problem I see with this is there's too many people who want to live forever no matter what the cost, so they fight to keep a corpse breathing for YEARS like they did with Terri Schivo. So to keep the system affordable, there needs to be a cut-off based on an individual's general health and prospects for independant living AFTER the "indicated procedure". This would eliminate most organ transplants for those over 80 and lots of other things for the grossly obese diabetic chain smokers at a considerably younger age. It would also expand Hospice services and "Home Care" workers with the funds NOT needed for "heroic" measures to treat the very elderly.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
242
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
240
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

240 Views
Message 6 of 45

@MaVolta wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Why not go Universal Coverage - Single Payer WITHOUT eliminating private insurance?

 

Works like this -

 

EVERYONE is covered, with a mandate for employer's to provide matching funds for the ACA Bronze Plan (employer/employee each pay $170/month, self employed pay $340) to cover the 24 Million currently without health insurance.

 

Everyone's premiums go to Govt, Government pays all claims and gets reimbursed by the individual's insurance company. Only 1 claims form, which will save the Insurance Companies $476Billion each year and drug companies pricing limited to lowest cost they sell for anywhere in the World, with those refusing to comply losing their patent protection, saving another $116Billion.Estimated savings from a study by Physicians for a National Health Program.

 

Sorry, I'm a little confused. If gov't collects the premiums and pays all of the claims, what would the insurance company have to do with it? Do they set the prices and coverage, and reimburse accordingly? The insurance company still collects half from the employer? 


The insurance companies would receive the premiums from the Gov't, invest them, and reimburse the Gov't for payments made. Company profits would be limited as is done now with the "20% cap" on payments for care vs revenue from premiums. Cost of the current premiums go down as the insurance company AND the providers no longer need a dozen different forms and there's only one payment schedule (adjusted for locality) with the current Gov't subsidy for the indigent/disabled being picked up with the "savings", est at $592Billion in the first year.


Thanks, Scout. That sounds similar to the way Medicare Advantage works with insurance companies being subsidized by government. Those plans have better coverage and lower costs provided that you have access to a good network, and that's a problem for a lot of people. What you describe would have more open access, right?


I'd point out the "subsidity" would be to expand the market for health insurance by 24 million Americans, and shaving half a TRILLION bucks off the overhead for Insurers and Providers and getting a handle on drug costs so Americans are no longer "subsidizing" the lower costs in every other country that sells American drugs.

 

There would only be ONE "network", because either you accept everybody, or you get insurance coverage for nobody. This would leave the boutique doctors serving the Uberrich, and everyone else serving the American people. Basically the "inservice" simply means your insurance company has negotiated what they feel are reasonable rates for treatment, and since the new system will use those already agreed to prices for everyone being treated because everyone will have insurance, no problem wondering if some procedure you receive will be covered at a reasonable price. If the provider accepts more than one insurer, then everyone gets the lowest price negotiated.

 

The key is we begin with the $3.65Trillion we now spend, and reduce the costs as we see how much the elimination of paperwork and expansion of the coverage pool effects the cost to deliver the care. The Government will monitor the costs and collections (premiums) to insure the savings are applied equally to all Americans, biggest factor in this would be the ACA provision that the insurance company MUST reimburse at least 80% of their premium revenue in the form of payments for medical services. Since the care providers will be receiving the lowest negotaited price AND eliminating between 20 and 30% of their overhead, the pay-out will be considerably reduced, so the difference will be rebated to their policy holders AND reflected in next year's (lower) premiums.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
240
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
246
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

246 Views
Message 7 of 45

@MaVolta wrote:

 

By contrast, Medicare for America would expand benefits to those already in the Medicare system without changing the way our premiums are presently calculated. The younger, working population would see an increase in their Medicare withholding taxes to pay for their care when they are retired. 

 

What makes you so sure that the younger generation just like they did with Obamacare will  want to be in any  kind of insurance if they have to pay a premium. and that premium would have to go up because when all are insured that cost may or not come down. and also let's not forget the ones, "The Goverment will not shove anything down my throat"  citizens that will not go with you on Medicare for  All


 

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
246
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
267
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

267 Views
Message 8 of 45

@GailL1 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@GailL1  - Because Medicaid is not an equitable system.


 


?????? How so ?

I assume you are talking about the LTC benefits for the poor under the Medicaid program.


No, I'm talking about the Medicaid system. LTC is a part of that system. 

 

From the press release - - -

 

Currently, there is incredibly limited access to long-term supports and supports in Medicare and private insurance, leaving Medicaid as the primary payer for these services and supports. With an emphasis on home and community-based settings, Medicare for America establishes and guarantees access to long-term support and services.

 

“We are grateful to Representatives DeLauro and Schakowsky for including long term services and supports (LTSS) as part of the Medicare for America bill,” said Nicole Jorwic, Senior Director of Public Policy of The Arc of the United States. “This will address the current institutional bias in the Medicaid program and increase access to the supports and services that allow people with disabilities to access the community, including people on waiting lists for these services all over the country. The inclusion of LTSS is an important recognition of the value of the lives of people with disabilities and the right that all people should have to a life in the community.”

 

https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-schakowsky-reintroduce-medicare-americ...

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
267
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
271
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

271 Views
Message 9 of 45

@GailL1 wrote:

Looks like some of the same problems we have today.

 

This legislation seemed to be killed by the "HAVES" - they didn't want to pay for the "Have Nots" -

 

Several factors explain the repeal.

  • Many elderly resented the idea of paying additional taxes to finance the new coverage.
  • the additional benefits mandated by the act would have been financed entirely by these (paying) elderly.
  • Resentment appeared to be highest among people who already had comprehensive health insurance cover-age from a former employer - the benefits of the new legislation added little to their existing coverage.  Our survey results indicate that in 1989, 45 percent of policy owners received their coverage through such an employer.     not only do most receive a premium subsidy, but their employer coverage tends to be more comprehensive. 

 


@GailL1  - The haves have never wanted to pay anything for the have-nots. That is nothing new, and is made abundantly clear on these boards every day. 

 

This was a surtax, a burden (and a hefty one at that) being levied on the older population that were either retired, or had already planned for their retirement. Of course they were angry. And it wasn't just the wealthy ones. This affected anyone who paid income tax of $150 or more. It doesn't take a scholar to figure out that one doesn't have to have a lot of income to be liable for $150 of income tax. That is what the Chicago Tribune article was all about. It had nothing to do with what the benefits were or might have been. 

 

By contrast, Medicare for America would expand benefits to those already in the Medicare system without changing the way our premiums are presently calculated. The younger, working population would see an increase in their Medicare withholding taxes to pay for their care when they are retired. 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
271
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
274
Views

Re: Medicare for America 2019

274 Views
Message 10 of 45

@john258 wrote:

:


Obamacare was a first step to a single payer system and when it  didn't have the ability to ensure all, it failed.

No matter what definition you want to attach to it. This country is not ready for a National Health Care system single payer or whatever.

The people are not ready. and certainly Medicare for All would really be the worse thing that could happen to this country now.


Hate to break the news to you but this country has a National Health Care system, and it is a bad one.

 

Well, I can see another one that doesn't think that Medicare for all would work. And you are correct. there are many things in which Medicare doesn't have lots of the things that a well implemented single payer that is designed to work in the US  will have to be.

I agree, that Medicare is not the perfect system. guess what, I cannot buy into a Medigap program because it has so many restrictions. and I don't qualy for it because I have Macular Degeneration. so as you can see. if Americans simply want a short cut and institute a Medicare for all program they would have to actually make it different that we have today.


 

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
274
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

AARP Coronavirus Call-in Event

AARP will host a weekly, live Coronavirus Information Tele-Town Hall on Thursdays at 1 pm (ET). Learn more on AARP's Coronavirus Tele-Town Hall page and join us each week for the latest information.

Calling is toll-free. During the 90-minute live event, government experts will answer your questions and address health concerns related to COVID-19.