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


@GailL1 wrote:

@john258

 

It is Bernie's plan - it is already written up in the form of legislation - it was introduced last year.  I think it is S.B. 1803 but I am just guessing at the number, can't remember for sure.

 

He has a time line in the legislation.

 

I am an expert !


How do you know that? You do not but you want to try and make that a starting point, just as you try and make this whole area into a total endless back and forth. There can be a totally new approach and I pointed out some of the steps. The experts will handle it no one in here is an expert so why do you keep trying to discuss something you nor I can. Here is an idea spend time working on how  to start a cure for the new childhood polio spreading around the country. That is going to add a lot of expense to the health care system. Go push for a cure to cut costs. Now forget Bernie, and you are not in any way shape of form an expert on Medical.

Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

 

I agree and that is the point of the updated program called "Medicare for All". It will be used to fix the current Medicare model and then improve it by EXTENDING coverage to every American citizen and legal resident. The perfect upgrade. 


 

 

Have you read it?  It is more complicated than just using the current Medicare model and extending coverage.  

 

There are some things in it that we could begin to try now as cost containment.  More cost cutting is needed - we can use methods other countries use if our citizens will go for it.

 

I cannot find where the continuous funding mechanism is coming from -

What happen if we go over the budget?

 

it keeps,the VA system in place but no more other programs - no more Medicaid, no more Medicare, no more CHIP, no more Tricare, no more FEHB.  I don't remember reading anything about the IHS.

 

Do you like the way prescription drugs are determined for the formulary inclusion, including price, use of generics?

 

Not sure that some doctors, ( the ones that do not participate in Medicare now) will like it  - we would need all we can get.

 

It is our vast number of private hospitals vs public and nonprofit which may also be a problem too.

 

I see a good bit of Personel problems with cost control - 

 

Healthcare is a very personal thing so, just like Obamacare, the detailed plan needs  to be sold to the Citizens - can it be, I personally don't think so.  People not on Medicare don't know much about it - heck many people on it don't know either.  Think people are looking for some pie in the sky płan and each visualizes it in a different way, perhaps on their own needs or desires.   

 

What about care for those who don't have legal citizenship status?

 

Would have to dissect it more.  And then everything would be based on what it cost - for all of us, for families, for employers, for each level of income.

 

I will not hold my breath -  

 

 


Of COURSE it is more complicated.  On the other hand, the conservatives here are getting all worked up because the of the name.  If they can't handle whatever the program is called, their heads will explode when they start to look at the details. Of course, they won't. 

 

Still, we have an advantage of having EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY in the world already having implemented universal medical coverage so I think we can find a way to do it. Don't you?

0 Kudos
251 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

It is like I said, just the name of the program "Medicare" brings all kinds of pie in the sky visions to many people - I think if a Millenial saw some of our monthly premiums for this and that, the copays, the deductibles, they might be disallusioned -

 

You keep bringing up those systems in other countries - OK, let's put in some of the things which they use to control their cost here and know down our cost a bit and see what people think.  Personally, I don't think a lot of people would like some of these other country ways.  

 

Add that to our vastly different lifestyles between urban and rural living (real rural) and our shear number in populations and we have little commonality in how an overall system could work.  Medicare has this problem now, so does the VA and Medicaid too.   Canada has this problem too with their Intuit population.

 

We need a starting point and I personally think that should be in corralling our health care cost - that would help our system now, it would let us know how people feel about this cost containing methods and it would be a good prelim if we ever went to a single payer system because cost containment has to be part of any new design system.

 

Until then we can pursue forced methods of getting everybody insured - emphasis on forced.  We can use reinsurance programs to cover people over a spending limit level of health care cost thus removing some of the premium increases due to some high health care users.

 

We have a bunch of legislators from both parties that don't want to rock the boat because their job is more secure by not rocking the boat.  They don't want to compromise on anything for basically the same reason.  So . . . .

Wish On.

 

 

0 Kudos
263 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

We already have "Medicare for All". It is commonly called Medicaid. If you don't make enough money to buy real healthcare insurance and you're not eligible for Medicare, then you qualify for Medicaid. Don't like Medicaid? Maybe the left wants guaranteed free housing, free cars, free cell phones, free insurance, and free food all compliments of people working hard to PAY for their own!


You are incorrect. It is  called ER Care. As I said all should learn the subject before trying to discuss it.


That would seem to indicate that Medicaid needs fixing. Why not push for that. In other words, why mess with a program that is doing it's intended thing rather than fixing one that isn't?

 

After you learn the programs you will not have to ask. Sadly the far right understands none of this.


0 Kudos
257 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

We already have "Medicare for All". It is commonly called Medicaid. If you don't make enough money to buy real healthcare insurance and you're not eligible for Medicare, then you qualify for Medicaid. Don't like Medicaid? Maybe the left wants guaranteed free housing, free cars, free cell phones, free insurance, and free food all compliments of people working hard to PAY for their own!


You are incorrect. It is  called ER Care. As I said all should learn the subject before trying to discuss it.


Why, you haven't!

0 Kudos
245 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@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.


It is difficult to have such a discussion with those unable or unwilling to understand the difference between "earned" and "given". The above is a perfect example.


Right now we have Medicaid and we have those who simply go to an emergency room with no money and no insurance. There will always be some that health care is "given" to. Do you prefer that they die in the streets?


It would appear that Medicaid is in need of fixing.

 

Yes, there will always be "given". My point was that "even if they themselves have government provided health care" seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between earned and given.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

It is difficult to have such a discussion with those unable or unwilling to understand the difference between "earned" and "given". The above is a perfect example.


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.

It is also difficult to have such a discussion with people who have no concept of what a government does.  It is in society's best interests to have working infrastructure, an effective military, law enforcement, and other services.  Conservatives don't seem to feel that funding those items is any kind of income sharing but try to change the funding method for health insurance to a one proved more effective and less expensive and they go bat puckey. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

It is difficult to have such a discussion with those unable or unwilling to understand the difference between "earned" and "given". The above is a perfect example.


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.

It is also difficult to have such a discussion with people who have no concept of what a government does.  It is in society's best interests to have working infrastructure, an effective military, law enforcement, and other services.  Conservatives don't seem to feel that funding those items is any kind of income sharing but try to change the funding method for health insurance to a one proved more effective and less expensive and they go bat puckey. 


People also need food - shall the government control all food distribution? People also need housing - shall the government control all housing. And the list goes on. No bat puckey in that - just honesty.

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.


Actually, I think the government would not interact with the insurance companies. Looking at other countries, the bill comes to the government and the government  applies the rules and then pays it.  That is what insurance companies do and there is no need to include them as an additional layer. IMHO. 

Honored Social Butterfly

Yea, why include the insurance companies for universal "basic coverage".

They spend too much money on lobbyists, ads, CEO pay, campaign donations, stock options. On top of that, they'll want to make a nice profit to keep their shareholders happy.

Anything beyond basic coverage, perhaps they could be included.

0 Kudos
240 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva 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.


Actually, I think the government would not interact with the insurance companies. Looking at other countries, the bill comes to the government and the government  applies the rules and then pays it.  That is what insurance companies do and there is no need to include them as an additional layer. IMHO. 


I think you've overlooked HOW the insurance company is able to make the payments using no more than 80% of the premiums collected - THEY INVEST.

Not sure about making Uncle Sam a portfolio manager, and SSTF and Medicare Trust Fund "Invest" in special Government securities with a LEGISLATED ROI.

Both those are included as part of the National Debt, and increasing that by the amount we spend each year on health insurance would probably be a "hard sell". Just having the citizens send Uncle Sam their premium checks then requires the Gov't to decide how/if coverage will change over time and if premiums need to be increased or decreased based on the cost of services.

What I suggested is pretty much how Germany does it.

0 Kudos
233 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

I think you've overlooked HOW the insurance company is able to make the payments using no more than 80% of the premiums collected - THEY INVEST.

Not sure about making Uncle Sam a portfolio manager, and SSTF and Medicare Trust Fund "Invest" in special Government securities with a LEGISLATED ROI.

Both those are included as part of the National Debt, and increasing that by the amount we spend each year on health insurance would probably be a "hard sell". Just having the citizens send Uncle Sam their premium checks then requires the Gov't to decide how/if coverage will change over time and if premiums need to be increased or decreased based on the cost of services.

What I suggested is pretty much how Germany does it.


I had not thought of investing the tax dollars and I like it. If they made me king, I would invest the money in existing mutual funds and take advantage of professional management.  Still, insurance companies make a profit and I see no place for them in Medicare-for-All.  I will have to look at the German system. 

Honored Social Butterfly

American administrative costs for health care are the highest in the world,

 

Medicare for All would save money because Medicare's administrative costs are below those of private insurers.

 

National Health Expenditure data shows both the government’s administrative costs for Medicare and those of Medicare’s private plans.

 

Putting them together for the most recent year available (2016), they reach $47 billion, or 7 percent of total Medicare spending — well above the administrative costs borne directly by the Medicare program.

 

Both figures are well below private insurers’ administrative costs, which run about 13 percent of spending (this also includes profit), according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an advocacy organization for the industry.

 

Some critics have argued that Medicare’s administrative cost rate appears artificially low because Medicare enrollees’ health spending is so high. Average Medicare spending per beneficiary is just over $12,000 per year; for an average worker in a private plan, it’s about $6,000. If you simply divide administrative costs by total spending, you will get a lower number for Medicare for this reason alone.

 

This is true, but the government’s administrative costs for Medicare are still below those of private plans.

 

The government’s administrative costs are about $132 per person compared with over $700 for private plans.

 

One reason Medicare’s are so much lower is that it reaps economies of scale. It also benefits from not needing to do much marketing, and it doesn’t earn profits

 

Source - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/upshot/is-medicare-for-all-the-answer-to-sky-high-administrative-...

 

 

 

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

" )
" - Anonymous

Honored Social Butterfly

There is a lot of talk in here about insurance costs, and support shown to back that up. Here are some thoughts you might want to think about. You get the cheapest insurance rates when everyone is insured. The rate setters for the Govt. and Insurance Cos. all use the same method to set rates. They know what % of the total number covered will have as losses from various causes each year, and yes it will vary some years higher, and some lower. They use loss reserves to account for that. That gives them the total amount in losses to be paid on average they then add in other costs like Admin., sales costs, profits. The reserves will be invested and produce a profit, and that is averaged and taken into account.

The 80% loss ratio talked about is by law in the ACA, and that leaves the Carrier 20% for all other. Before the ACA it was up to the carrier. I have seen 18% profit wanted. Commissions were be between 0 and 15% average. If a loss ratio went near 60% you looked at the group with an eye to a rate increase.

Medi Care is rated for about a 97% loss ratio, and 3% exp. ratio, and a support article tells all that. It goes on to talk about Medicare advantage which are private insurance plans. Medicare pays the Insurance Carrier what it cost medicare to provide coverage for a person. They then at the start paid the carrier an additional 15%. This was to be reduced over time to zero, and it has been cut some but is not zero. That means we all paid a higher Medicare fee so some could have the Medicare Advantage program. This was to be only a short time cost so the support article does not fully tell the story.

The part D drug coverage is a separate program and is rated as such since you can buy it or not. The support article leaves that out, and thus the article becomes bogus on the entire subject. You can make the part D a mandatory part of  the Medicare program and rate for it in the base rate if you want to, and yes the base rate would go up. You can cut the drug costs by allowing Medicare to get prices from the drug cos. directly, and allow generics to be more quickly offered. That would bring drug cost down to what you see in other countries around the world.

In closing Medicare is 97% loss ratio, 3% expense ration. I would suggest everyone take some time and learn about Medical Insurance. AARP in your local area should be able to help you as they have people who understand the subject. Yes I worked in the Health Insurance field. The biggest problem in fixing this problem is people not understanding it. Go understand it.

0 Kudos
249 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@RoyB381260 wrote:

#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 .


Medicare is only available to those who paid into it. Will that be the case with Medicare for all? If not, you have the wrong name.

0 Kudos
221 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@RoyB381260 wrote:

#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 .


Medicare is only available to those who paid into it. Will that be the case with Medicare for all? If not, you have the wrong name.


OK. We will change the name to Healthcare-for-All and that will resolve your issue. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@RoyB381260 wrote:

#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 .


Medicare is only available to those who paid into it. Will that be the case with Medicare for all? If not, you have the wrong name.


OK. We will change the name to Healthcare-for-All and that will resolve your issue. 


The name does not effect it's essence - socialized medicine. 

0 Kudos
247 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

We can call it "Patriot Healtcare". I think then a lot of Republicans will get on board.

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