Reply
Regular Contributor

#MedicareForAll

#MedicareForAll will provide MANY MORE and MUCH IMPROVED BENENFITS FOR SENIORS .. and for every AMERICAN CITIZEN .. it will cut the enormous profits TAKEN by insurers before payimg for care for US. I am a INDEPENDENT and I will vote against the republicans that are trying to cut OUR MEDICAL .. SOCIAL SECURITY and other benefits WE desparately need.

PLEASE be extra vigilent and KNOW what is being proposed in Washington .

Honored Social Butterfly

Not Happening wrote, "Senior Medicare is also funded two ways: on an ongoing basis while you are working for 20-45 years and by high monthly payments after you attain the age of 65. Since YOU want Medicare for all, will the younger than 65 pay triple premiums since they DIDN'T put money into the Medicare system for 45 years? "

 

Good point and I agree that younger people would have to pay much higher premiums than they currently contribute to Medicare only for their senior years. But they would not have to pay for private health insurance.

 

The one factor I would add, is unlike Medicare for Seniors, I think "Medicare for All" should be a voluntary option for everyone under the age of 65. If a young person prefers private health insurance, that option should be available.

0 Kudos
294 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.

0 Kudos
238 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.


Senior Medicare is also funded two ways: on an ongoing basis while you are working for 20-45 years and by high monthly payments after you attain the age of 65. Since YOU want Medicare for all, will the younger than 65 pay triple premiums since they DIDN'T put money into the Medicare system for 45 years? Leftists probably think not and the senior system of Medicare will get swamped with the younger people in the system. I see the ultimate failure of Medicare as the result of not thinking before proposing this solution.

0 Kudos
367 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Senior Medicare is also funded two ways: on an ongoing basis while you are working for 20-45 years and by high monthly payments after you attain the age of 65. Since YOU want Medicare for all, will the younger than 65 pay triple premiums since they DIDN'T put money into the Medicare system for 45 years?

 

The simple answer is "No". Remember that seniors are the most expensive group for healthcare costs. It was the driving force to create Medicare for seniors in the first place. Insurance companies did not want to cover seniors. Young, healthy people - yes". Sick people - no. Seniors - no. 

 

19 million individuals signed up for Medicare during its first year in 1966. None of them had payed into the system for 45 years. None of them paid into the system for even one year.


I'm sure people will come up with many ways to pay for Medicare-for-All. I like the penny-tax on stock transactions. I don't believe Bernie includes that in his plan. A national lottery could help pay for it, as some parts of Canada do. Sales tax is popular in some countries, including Canada.

We're Americans. If other counries can come up with ways to insure all its people, I can't see why we can't. 


Medicare-for-All should guarantee basic healthcare for all its people as every major industrial nation has done. Everybody in. No out.


Ideas - How to pay for Medicare-for-All:


https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

 

medicare for all 1944.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
348 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.


Exactly - and those are the people supposedly in need, so help them via Medicaid.

0 Kudos
276 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.


Exactly - and those are the people supposedly in need, so help them via Medicaid.


Once we have universal health care, it won't matter what we call it. My thought is rather than try to keep individual programs we put them all into one program. Look at the programs in several of the developed countries which are providing the best outcomes at the lowest costs, determine where  improvements  are needed, and build a new program on the infrastructure provided by medicare, Medicaid, the VA and other existing US programs. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.


Exactly - and those are the people supposedly in need, so help them via Medicaid.


Once we have universal health care, it won't matter what we call it. My thought is rather than try to keep individual programs we put them all into one program. Look at the programs in several of the developed countries which are providing the best outcomes at the lowest costs, determine where  improvements  are needed, and build a new program on the infrastructure provided by medicare, Medicaid, the VA and other existing US programs. 


Yes, you want socialized medicine. But the complaint seems to be poor people who can't afford insurance and people having to go to the ER. Why would Medicaid not be the way to go for them and leave the rest of us alone?

0 Kudos
338 Views
4
Report
Trusted Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.



Yes, you want socialized medicine. But the complaint seems to be poor people who can't afford insurance and people having to go to the ER. Why would Medicaid not be the way to go for them and leave the rest of us alone?


52,

There is no "Socialized" anything in the:

Medicare health insurance program,

Medicare for All health insurance program

Medicaid health insurance program.

 

Keep in mind , the medical resources used in each program is "for profit". "For profit" does not exist in anything "Socialized".

 

Also, there are many reasons to go to Medicare for All "health insurance". I'll name 2..

 

1. Everyone in this country would pay for it including those poor that concern you, no exceptions. We would have NO UNINSURED.

 

2.  NO UNINSURED means we would have no "Medicaid" spending (hundreds of tax payer billions).

0 Kudos
323 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@alotofgrey wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

One should never expect Trump Cult members to deal with FACTS. 

 

"Medicare for All" is NOT Medicaid."Medicare for All" is paid for by the people who are working and paying Medicare premiums out of their paycheck.

 

Medicaid is a welfare program where health care is provided for free to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums.



Yes, you want socialized medicine. But the complaint seems to be poor people who can't afford insurance and people having to go to the ER. Why would Medicaid not be the way to go for them and leave the rest of us alone?


52,

There is no "Socialized" anything in the:

Medicare health insurance program,

Medicare for All health insurance program

Medicaid health insurance program.

 

Keep in mind , the medical resources used in each program is "for profit". "For profit" does not exist in anything "Socialized".

 

Also, there are many reasons to go to Medicare for All "health insurance". I'll name 2..

 

1. Everyone in this country would pay for it including those poor that concern you, no exceptions. We would have NO UNINSURED.

 

2.  NO UNINSURED means we would have no "Medicaid" spending (hundreds of tax payer billions).


How are the poor going to pay for it when they currently cannot afford insurance? 

 

No Medicaid spending but the money would still be spent but under another name. So, no savings there.

 

When the government takes over the healthcare system, I think that is a pretty good definition of "Socialized Medicine". And let's not play the game of, "No, they will not control it, they will only pay for it". That is unrealistic.

 

What is wrong with leaving things be as they are but expanding Medicaid for the poor - the main objective here.

0 Kudos
307 Views
2
Report
Trusted Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:


How are the poor going to pay for it when they currently cannot afford insurance? 

 

The same way the poor in the other 35 developed countries pay for their health insurance, a pay check deduction.

 

No Medicaid spending but the money would still be spent but under another name. So, no savings there.

 

Medicaid is for people that have no health insurance. No uninsured means NO Medicaid.

 

When the government takes over the healthcare system, I think that is a pretty good definition of "Socialized Medicine". And let's not play the game of, "No, they will not control it, they will only pay for it". That is unrealistic.

 

Our healthcare system is "For Profit". Medicare For All will not change that. However, it will make it more profitable by eliminating our uninsured and our government Medicaid spending.

 

What is wrong with leaving things be as they are but expanding Medicaid for the poor - the main objective here.

 

That is not the objective.

Our uninsured are making all of that not sustainable. Because of them the cost  of health insurance, medical products, and medical services in this country are the highest of any country on this planet. There presence is making that worse.


The objective is to get rid of our uninsured problem.That Republican Obamacare program was supposed to end it. It did not and will not. Medicare For All will.

 

We (includes you) know that  because each of the other 35 developed countries used a similar nonoptional government health insurance program to get rid of their uninsured.

 

The issue is how do we get rid of  our uninsured. It can be done. The other developed countries have done it.

0 Kudos
281 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@alotofgrey wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


How are the poor going to pay for it when they currently cannot afford insurance? 

 

The same way the poor in the other 35 developed countries pay for their health insurance, a pay check deduction.

 

No Medicaid spending but the money would still be spent but under another name. So, no savings there.

 

Medicaid is for people that have no health insurance. No uninsured means NO Medicaid.

 

When the government takes over the healthcare system, I think that is a pretty good definition of "Socialized Medicine". And let's not play the game of, "No, they will not control it, they will only pay for it". That is unrealistic.

 

Our healthcare system is "For Profit". Medicare For All will not change that. However, it will make it more profitable by eliminating our uninsured and our government Medicaid spending.

 

What is wrong with leaving things be as they are but expanding Medicaid for the poor - the main objective here.

 

That is not the objective.

Our uninsured are making all of that not sustainable. Because of them the cost  of health insurance, medical products, and medical services in this country are the highest of any country on this planet. There presence is making that worse.


The objective is to get rid of our uninsured problem.That Republican Obamacare program was supposed to end it. It did not and will not. Medicare For All will.

 

We (includes you) know that  because each of the other 35 developed countries used a similar nonoptional government health insurance program to get rid of their uninsured.

 

The issue is how do we get rid of  our uninsured. It can be done. The other developed countries have done it.


Yes, that would deal with the uninsured aspect. But what about people who do not have food - shall we have a government "food for all" program? And then there is housing - and  clothing.

 

What is wrong with expanding Medicaid for the poor?

0 Kudos
273 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

"We're very, very lucky."

 

"We can go anywhere we want." (unlike HMOs in the U.S.)

 

"We don't need to be pre-approved by an insurance company."

 

"We can choose our own doctor."

 

Deductable? - "Huh?"

 

"On the whole, it's really a fabulous system."

 

"We make sure the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@gordyfl wrote:

"We're very, very lucky."

 

"We can go anywhere we want." (unlike HMOs in the U.S.)

 

"We don't need to be pre-approved by an insurance company."

 

"We can choose our own doctor."

 

Deductable? - "Huh?"

 

"On the whole, it's really a fabulous system."

 

"We make sure the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."

 

 


Thank you for posting the truth about Canada's national health care and how it wroks so well.  If this is "Socialized Medicine", then we should have it.  The Right here uses the word "Socialized" as a scare tactic, LOL !!!


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

"We're very, very lucky."

 

"We can go anywhere we want." (unlike HMOs in the U.S.)

 

"We don't need to be pre-approved by an insurance company."

 

"We can choose our own doctor."

 

Deductable? - "Huh?"

 

"On the whole, it's really a fabulous system."

 

"We make sure the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."

 

 

Life-Threatening Heart Attack Leaves Teacher With $108,951 Bill
Drew Calver, a high school history teacher and swim coach in Austin, Texas, had a heart attack at his home on April 2, 2017. A neighbor rushed him to the nearby emergency room at St. David's Medical Center, which wasn't in the school district's health plan.


Editor's note: Shortly after this story was published and broadcast, St. David's said it was now willing to accept $782.29 to resolve the $108,951 balance because Drew Calver qualifies for its "financial assistance discount."


Drew Calver took out his trash cans and then waved goodbye to his wife, Erin, as she left for the grocery store the morning that upended his picture-perfect life.
Minutes later, the popular high school history teacher and swim coach in Austin, Texas, collapsed in his bedroom from a heart attack. He pounded his fist on the bed frame, violent chest pains pinning him to the floor.
"I thought I was dying," the 44-year-old father recalled. A neighbor rushed him to the nearby emergency room at St. David's Medical Center on April 2, 2017.
The ER doctors confirmed the damage to Calver's heart and admitted him to the hospital's cardiac unit. The next day, doctors implanted stents in his clogged "widow-maker" artery.


Calver asked from his hospital bed whether his health insurance would cover all of this, a financial worry that accompanies nearly every American hospital stay.


He was concerned because St. David's is out-of-network on his school district health plan.


The hospital told him not to worry and that they would accept his insurance, Calver said.


The hospital charged $164,941 for his surgery and four days in the hospital. Aetna, which administers health benefits for the Austin Independent School District, paid the hospital $55,840, records show.

Despite the difference of more than $100,000, with the hospital's prior assurance, Calver believed he would not bear much, if any, out-of-pocket payment for his life-threatening emergency and the surgery that saved him.


Then the bills came.


https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/640891882/life-threatening-heart-attack-leaves-...

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@gordyfl wrote:

"We're very, very lucky."

 

"We can go anywhere we want." (unlike HMOs in the U.S.)

 

"We don't need to be pre-approved by an insurance company."

 

"We can choose our own doctor."

 

Deductable? - "Huh?"

 

"On the whole, it's really a fabulous system."

 

"We make sure the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."

 

 

Life-Threatening Heart Attack Leaves Teacher With $108,951 Bill
Drew Calver, a high school history teacher and swim coach in Austin, Texas, had a heart attack at his home on April 2, 2017. A neighbor rushed him to the nearby emergency room at St. David's Medical Center, which wasn't in the school district's health plan.


Editor's note: Shortly after this story was published and broadcast, St. David's said it was now willing to accept $782.29 to resolve the $108,951 balance because Drew Calver qualifies for its "financial assistance discount."


Drew Calver took out his trash cans and then waved goodbye to his wife, Erin, as she left for the grocery store the morning that upended his picture-perfect life.
Minutes later, the popular high school history teacher and swim coach in Austin, Texas, collapsed in his bedroom from a heart attack. He pounded his fist on the bed frame, violent chest pains pinning him to the floor.
"I thought I was dying," the 44-year-old father recalled. A neighbor rushed him to the nearby emergency room at St. David's Medical Center on April 2, 2017.
The ER doctors confirmed the damage to Calver's heart and admitted him to the hospital's cardiac unit. The next day, doctors implanted stents in his clogged "widow-maker" artery.


Calver asked from his hospital bed whether his health insurance would cover all of this, a financial worry that accompanies nearly every American hospital stay.


He was concerned because St. David's is out-of-network on his school district health plan.


The hospital told him not to worry and that they would accept his insurance, Calver said.


The hospital charged $164,941 for his surgery and four days in the hospital. Aetna, which administers health benefits for the Austin Independent School District, paid the hospital $55,840, records show.

Despite the difference of more than $100,000, with the hospital's prior assurance, Calver believed he would not bear much, if any, out-of-pocket payment for his life-threatening emergency and the surgery that saved him.


Then the bills came.


https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/640891882/life-threatening-heart-attack-leaves-...

 

 


This is the second biggest problem with our non-system, first being it "misses" 43 Million Americans. We need a National Law setting the allowable rates for all medical procedures - the Insurance industry and the Provider Corporations have already done this, so it's just a matter of collecting the information in one place.

 

No more "Charge Master" which is used to maximize profits and has NOTHING to do with the actual cost of providing care.

 

No more "patient responsible for costs", it's all between the Corporations.

 

No more uninsured Americans.

 

OR we could just have all the premiums go to the Government, the Government would "Nationalize" Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and use the well administered home mortgages to earn the money to cover the difference between premium income and expense for care. Then the Insurance Industry could go back to insuring THINGS and We the People would take care people.

 

 

0 Kudos
276 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.


In reality, you last line should say, "ALL American get something paid for by SOME Americans".

 

There is nothing wrong with charity although it is better done through charitable institutions not via wealth redistribution by the government.

 

But if you want it done via wealth redistribution by the government, why not at least be honest about it and call for a "Poor HealthCare" - then instead of Medicare which people pay into you could use Medicaid which recipients do not pay into as a basis for your desires.

0 Kudos
254 Views
20
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.


In reality, you last line should say, "ALL American get something paid for by SOME Americans".

 

There is nothing wrong with charity although it is better done through charitable institutions not via wealth redistribution by the government.

 

But if you want it done via wealth redistribution by the government, why not at least be honest about it and call for a "Poor HealthCare" - then instead of Medicare which people pay into you could use Medicaid which recipients do not pay into as a basis for your desires.


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Short version of "Medicare for All", aka Universal, single payer health care.

 

The "single payer" will be Uncle Sam. The Government will receive the bill from your provider and make reimbursement according to the pre-agreed schedule of payments, YOU will NOT be responsible for anything the provider thinks was "under-paid".

 

The Government will then go to your insurance provider and collect the pre-agreed payment. Again, YOU will not be involved in having to get the insurance company to pay.

 

There will be a "standard format" for the providers to use in requesting reimbursement and another for the government receiving reimbursement from the insurance company. This single elimination of paperwork will save the system enough money to provide a "basic level" of insurance for everyone currently uninsured equal to the "Bronze Plan" under Obamacare.

 

This is close to every Universal health plan in Europe, EXCEPT the UK where the Government actually operates the hospitals and employs the doctors.

 

Repubicans will oppose this because the 1% do not receive special treatment, and the actual benefits will go the ALL Americans.


In reality, you last line should say, "ALL American get something paid for by SOME Americans".

 

There is nothing wrong with charity although it is better done through charitable institutions not via wealth redistribution by the government.

 

But if you want it done via wealth redistribution by the government, why not at least be honest about it and call for a "Poor HealthCare" - then instead of Medicare which people pay into you could use Medicaid which recipients do not pay into as a basis for your desires.


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 


You want Socialized Medicine. Fine, all I ask is that people thinking that way be honest and not try to make it sound like Medicare.

0 Kudos
250 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

 


Leave it to the conervatives to worry about how much they will have to pay to get a baby the medical care it needs. This is no more wealth distribution than paying for a bridge or the military. A society needs to keep its members healthy and this is the most cost efficient way of doing it. 


It's hard to sell universal health care to a group of people who only care about themselves, even if they themselves have government provided health care.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
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