Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
72
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

72 Views
Message 1 of 136

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Those that post the acronym "LMAO" or "ROFLMAO" are informing the world that they are liberal Socialists!


That's not the first time that an erroneous claim has been made here.

 


And I'm sure it's not your last.


A trump supporter will do it again, and again, and again, and again. No one can keep up with them making erroneous claims, they're just like trump, he's made over 2500 false statements and trump supporters love repeating them. 


Democrats in 2020
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
72
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
159
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

159 Views
Message 2 of 136

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Those that post the acronym "LMAO" or "ROFLMAO" are informing the world that they are liberal Socialists!


That's not the first time that an erroneous claim has been made here.

 


And I'm sure it's not your last.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
159
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
170
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

170 Views
Message 3 of 136

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Those that post the acronym "LMAO" or "ROFLMAO" are informing the world that they are liberal Socialists!


That's not the first time that an erroneous claim has been made here.

 


Democrats in 2020
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
170
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

179 Views
Message 4 of 136

Those that post the acronym "LMAO" or "ROFLMAO" are informing the world that they are liberal Socialists!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
179
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
188
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

188 Views
Message 5 of 136

It is completely erroneous and hilarious to see Critical Thinking being called a "Socialist" !   ROFLMAO !!!!!!


Democrats in 2020
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
188
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
194
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

194 Views
Message 6 of 136

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What you are describing is "Medicaid for All" and not Medicare for All.  Try your trick going to a private doctor (specialist) and tell him/her that you are here for the free service and see how well that works out.  I can choose any specialist with my Original Medicare and go and be accepted by the doctors and not rejected.


For once I agree with you, we don't presently have "a form of Medicare For All" and it's bogus for anyone to claim that.


We currently have Medicaid for All and you and I agree it should be better than that.  I remember as a kid, we had county run hospitals and clinics where people with little to no means could get care.  I presume that many of those disappeared because there was a stigma associated with the county facilities.  I'm also talking about the time where you went to a private doc and paid $5 or they even came to you for $6 and there was no insurance and minimal lawsuits.  The added cost of regulations, fairness, procedure codes, insurance, and litigation has added greatly to the problems and COST!

 

My preference would be some of the old, ought to come back!


You are referring to a time when health care was not-for-profit and you can thank Nixon for changing that. It's unreasonable to think that a doctor's visit could be $5.00 today, sixty to seventy years later. 


Health care was always for profit.  When doctors charged $5.00 per visit, the average salary was paltry also so that amounted to a large sum.  The thing that changed was government regulations, elimination of county hospitals/clinics, the addition of insurance, the greedy lawyers saw an opportunity to get rich via lawsuits (against the doctors/hospitals).  When you paid the doctor first hand without the list of constraints, the amount you paid for service was less (percent of income).  Now, you are lucky to find a doctor appointment for less than $100 and the myriad of forms to fill out only aggravates the problem.

 

Before we had government insurance, things were better for all.


You evidently missed what I posted. Health care in America was not-for-profit until Nixon changed it. OUt came the large for profit corporations owning most of our Hospitals and Provider  Associations. The entire health care industry became for profit and controlled by giant  public traded for-profit corporations, including giant for-profit insurance giants. That is what has escalated the cost of health care in America.


Democrats in 2020
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
194
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

202 Views
Message 7 of 136

@CriticalThinking wrote:

I completely disagree with Not Happening. Government insurance programs, although far from perfect, were good for most people.. There was no discrimination and they brought insurance to people who were denied coverage by private companies. 

 

Medicare is a great example. Despite its problems, most Americans like and benefit tremendously from Medicare.

 

In addition, before Obamcare became the law, milllions of Americans were denied health insurance, or penalized severely for having pre-existing conditions. Do you realize that approximately 1 out of every 3 Americans has a pre-existing condition?

 

Thanks to Obamacare, pre-existing conditions are no longer a problem.

 

Saying private health insurance was better is a myth. That doesn't mean private health insurance is always bad, because that isn't true either. Some private insurance companies were and are excellent.


Being a liberal Socialist, I'm not surprised at you disagreeing with Nothappening.

 

BTW-The percentage of people with health insurance coverage for all or part of 2018 was 91.5 percent, lower than the rate in 2017 (92.1 percent). Between 2017 and 2018, the percentage of people with public coverage decreased 0.4 percentage points, and the percentage of people with private coverage did not statistically change.

 

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-267.html

 

Democrat Socialists want to make sure that government runs everything (into the ground).

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
202
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

204 Views
Message 8 of 136

@john258 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

you


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What you are describing is "Medicaid for All" and not Medicare for All.  Try your trick going to a private doctor (specialist) and tell him/her that you are here for the free service and see how well that works out.  I can choose any specialist with my Original Medicare and go and be accepted by the doctors and not rejected.


For once I agree with you, we don't presently have "a form of Medicare For All" and it's bogus for anyone to claim that.


Medicare for all means all people can be treated whether they can pay for it or not


No John, 'Medicare For All' means much much more than that. Saying that what we have today is a form of Medicare for all is just plain wrong, as wrong as wrong can be. There is no comparison.


The first thing one must do on this subject is understand the entire system before trying to push any changes. As the President of a Hospital told P Harris everyone now has medical coverage and anyone who has worked in the system knows that. The ER part does not require payment to get. It is the most expensive, and has the poorest result of any part. There never has been a cost study of  the entire system. If there was you would find the cost of the improvements in what would be a new version of medicare for all be a lot less or even save some money being spent now. We all pay for the ER care in taxes, premiums, etc as it is added into everything done in the total medical system. The far right reb., and Trump take the position you do there is no comparison between what is proposed as the new Medicare for All and the form of medicare for all we now have and use bad cost figures to kill the new approach. So you are telling me you agree with Trump and the far right on the costs of the new Medicare for all. There is another answer which a Gov. of GA gave. Let them die in the streets. WE NOW HAVE A FORM FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL IN OUR TOTAL MEDICAL TREATMENT PROGRAM.


I tired of false assumptions and accusations like tRump supporters make. No, I don't take the same opposition as tRump and the "far right rep". No, what we have is not anywhere close to a form of "Medicare for All".  No I am not "telling you I agree with tRump on the costs of Medicare for All".  

 

NO WE DO NOT HAVE A FORM OF MEDICARE FOR ALL IN OUR TOTAL MEDICAL TREATMENT PROGRAM.   This is true no matter how many times you claim that we do, EVEN WHEN YOU TYPE IT IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.     Going to the doctor of your own choice and being able to go for preventative health care isn't included for people who are poor, without insurance, and are forced to use an emergency room. It's nothing similar to what Medicare For All would be like.

 

By the way the following, which you said is correct, supports the need for Medicare For All:  You said this: "There never has been a cost study of  the entire system. If there was  there was you would find the cost of the improvements in what would be a new version of medicare for all be a lot less or even save some money being spent now".      


You need to learn the entire system. We have a total Health Care system now where everyone can get medical Treatment period. That is a form of Medicare for all. The part that covers much of the non payers is ER Care. That is the part that the Medicare for all which Bernie wants will reduce heavily the number in ER care. Bernie plan will use 2 parts. Medicaid for people who can not pay, and Medicare for under 65 for the rest. There still will be other self standing parts of the system like IHS, Va, Military are examples. These could be merged in if they wanted to.


Any time anyone disagrees with you you say "you need to learn the entire system". It's gotten old. Many of us "know the system" that disagree with you. No it is not "a form of Medicare for all", not even close to it.

 

I myself support a full blown single payer for everyone, from cradle to grave. No more Medicare, Medicaid, no more plans for City, County, State, for Federal workers, no more separate health care for veterans, nothing else but a single payer that includes every citizen in America. Veterans and everyone else could go to the doctors of their choice, they would be covered everywhere.  It would be the cheapest way to go.


Democrats in 2020
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
204
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
222
Views

Medicare for all: The long game is working

222 Views
Message 9 of 136

I completely disagree with Not Happening. Government insurance programs, although far from perfect, were good for most people.. There was no discrimination and they brought insurance to people who were denied coverage by private companies. 

 

Medicare is a great example. Despite its problems, most Americans like and benefit tremendously from Medicare.

 

In addition, before Obamcare became the law, milllions of Americans were denied health insurance, or penalized severely for having pre-existing conditions. Do you realize that approximately 1 out of every 3 Americans has a pre-existing condition?

 

Thanks to Obamacare, pre-existing conditions are no longer a problem.

 

Saying private health insurance was better is a myth. That doesn't mean private health insurance is always bad, because that isn't true either. Some private insurance companies were and are excellent.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
222
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
241
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

241 Views
Message 10 of 136

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What you are describing is "Medicaid for All" and not Medicare for All.  Try your trick going to a private doctor (specialist) and tell him/her that you are here for the free service and see how well that works out.  I can choose any specialist with my Original Medicare and go and be accepted by the doctors and not rejected.


For once I agree with you, we don't presently have "a form of Medicare For All" and it's bogus for anyone to claim that.


We currently have Medicaid for All and you and I agree it should be better than that.  I remember as a kid, we had county run hospitals and clinics where people with little to no means could get care.  I presume that many of those disappeared because there was a stigma associated with the county facilities.  I'm also talking about the time where you went to a private doc and paid $5 or they even came to you for $6 and there was no insurance and minimal lawsuits.  The added cost of regulations, fairness, procedure codes, insurance, and litigation has added greatly to the problems and COST!

 

My preference would be some of the old, ought to come back!


You are referring to a time when health care was not-for-profit and you can thank Nixon for changing that. It's unreasonable to think that a doctor's visit could be $5.00 today, sixty to seventy years later. 


Health care was always for profit.  When doctors charged $5.00 per visit, the average salary was paltry also so that amounted to a large sum.  The thing that changed was government regulations, elimination of county hospitals/clinics, the addition of insurance, the greedy lawyers saw an opportunity to get rich via lawsuits (against the doctors/hospitals).  When you paid the doctor first hand without the list of constraints, the amount you paid for service was less (percent of income).  Now, you are lucky to find a doctor appointment for less than $100 and the myriad of forms to fill out only aggravates the problem.

 

Before we had government insurance, things were better for all.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
241
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Claim your 1,000 Welcome bonus points!

Get Started with AARP Rewards.

Top Authors