From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
233
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

233 Views
Message 21 of 68

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Laurie42010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Laurie42010 wrote:

I can't help but ask, are the people so opposed to the "Medicare for All" system that afraid of the whole health insurance and pharma industry?  These organizations/corporations should be more concerned about the care/coverage for the people to keep them healthy BEFORE serious illness strikes and not we will cover THIS if/when illness appears, which is all about a profit driven system not a overall welfare of human life system, imo.  If they have money to put into the whole lobbist system that again shows they will invest in "other" before the actual people.


I can't answer for "all" the people opposed to Medicare for all but I can answer for myself.

 

I am against Medicare for All because:

 

Only 9% of the people in America (30 million are without healthcare insurance) AND the government will take over healthcare for all 330 million people.  Why should 91% not have what they're used to with the old healthcare insurance they currently have?

 

They could more easily put the 30 million without healthcare on Medicaid and through their filing of tax forms, determine who is able to afford the (Medicaid) premiums and tax them if appropriate.

 

Government has a way of inefficiently doing things.

 

There will be more constraints than now with existing insurance (one size doesn't fit all).

 

Medicare for All will be charged on a basis that is similar to Medicare payments (the more money you earn, the more the premiums are).  No insurance works like that (except government plans).


I refer to the below article from Feb. 11, 2019 - CNBC - "This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html

 

This my family experienced first hand back in the mid 70's when my mother had cancer, went through all the combative "experimental" measures to keep her alive for her three young daughters, but was just not ever going to be enough to save her. So.....why don't they (health industry) stop spending money on lobbying and put it to r&d to find cures?


They could more easily put the 30 million without healthcare on Medicaid and through their filing of tax forms, determine who is able to afford the (Medicaid) premiums and tax them if appropriate.

 

Experimental measures is a problem with conventional insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.

 

This would take care of this situation!


If Universal Health Care programs are so bad, then why hasn't any country who has adopted one rescinded it?  The question is easily answered ............. health statistics prove it.  Universal Health Care Plans bring less cost per person, far better health statistics, and far better overall health for a county's citizens.  Your fear is unfounded.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
233
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
222
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

222 Views
Message 22 of 68

@Laurie42010 wrote:

I can't help but ask, are the people so opposed to the "Medicare for All" system that afraid of the whole health insurance and pharma industry?  These organizations/corporations should be more concerned about the care/coverage for the people to keep them healthy BEFORE serious illness strikes and not we will cover THIS if/when illness appears, which is all about a profit driven system not a overall welfare of human life system, imo.  If they have money to put into the whole lobbyist system that again shows they will invest in "other" before the actual people.


Our entire' health care system' (if that's what you want to call it) in America is based on profit. Profit for all of the providers, profit for the pharma's, profit for the health insurance companies, profit for the giant corporations that own most of the major treatment facilities and hospitals, etc, etc. This profit is based on the treatment of diseases and sickness. People have to get a disease or a sickness for them to profit. So actually, 'preventative medicine' is a monkey wrench in our for profit system. Preventative medicine is for the people, not for those profiting from treating diseases and illnesses.

 

This needs to change. It's time for a single payer Universal Heath Care System in America, a system for the people instead o f for the giant for profit corporations and Insurance Giants.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
222
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
241
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

241 Views
Message 23 of 68

To add an easy read -  

Commonwealth Fund 2019 - Variations on a Theme - A Look at Universal Health Coverage in (8) Countrie...

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
0
Kudos
241
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
236
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

236 Views
Message 24 of 68

@gordyfl 

Expanding Medicaid also fixes this problem for many people/families.

 

2003 is a long time ago.  Sure people are underinsured - probably on their car and home/renters insurance also.  They pick the cheapest premiums and then can't cover the out of pocket cost - They do have a choice in the individual marketplace as to which plan to pick.

 

Health System Tracker - Out of Pocket Spending Analysis And Comparisons

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
236
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
222
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

222 Views
Message 25 of 68

The number of Americans classified as underinsured has more than doubled since 2003, according to research by the Commonwealth Fund.

 

Last year, 28% of adults aged 19 to 64 were "underinsured". That's a good 41 million people for those keeping track.

 

Not only is that a frightening number on its own, but it represents a steep climb over a mere 13-year stretch.


What's considered underinsured?


Though having some health coverage is worlds better than having none at all, those with inadequate coverage will continue to remain financially vulnerable.

 

What does "inadequate" mean in this context? The Commonwealth Fund defines being underinsured as:


Having out-of-pocket costs (not including premiums) for the year that equal or exceed 10% of one's income
Having out-of-pocket costs (not including premiums) for the year that equal or exceed 5% of one's income if that income is $23,760 or less for an individual, or $48,600 or less for a family of four
Having a deductible equal to 5% or more of one's income.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/budget-and-spending/2017/11/23/guess-how-many-a...


"Medicare for All" -- Problem solved.

 

aaa ambulance.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
222
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
220
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

220 Views
Message 26 of 68

@Laurie42010 wrote:

I can't help but ask, are the people so opposed to the "Medicare for All" system that afraid of the whole health insurance and pharma industry?  These organizations/corporations should be more concerned about the care/coverage for the people to keep them healthy BEFORE serious illness strikes and not we will cover THIS if/when illness appears, which is all about a profit driven system not a overall welfare of human life system, imo.  If they have money to put into the whole lobbist system that again shows they will invest in "other" before the actual people.


Exactly so Laurie - Big Pharma now spends TWICE as much on ADVERTIZING as they do on Research and Development, so a simple ban on advertizing of PRESCRIPTION drugs will make it possible for the Greedmongers to TRIPLE their R&D without increasing prices one red cent.

 

It will also eliminate the huge incentive Big Pharma has to tweek existing drugs with subtile alterations in the chemical composition and claim its a new product to prevent the old one becoming available as a generic.

 

This WOULD have prevented the opiod disaster BigPharma inflected on the American People as it would've discouraged them from inventing ARTIFICIAL HEROINS LIKE FENTANYL. This was a great boon to the Mafia as their street Heroin is CHEAPER than the BigPharma artificals, boosting sales back to where they were in the 1960's.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
220
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
214
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

214 Views
Message 27 of 68

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


I can't answer for "all" the people opposed to Medicare for all but I can answer for myself.

 

I am against Medicare for All because:

 

Only 9% of the people in America (30 million are without healthcare insurance) AND the government will take over healthcare for all 330 million people.  Why should 91% not have what they're used to with the old healthcare insurance they currently have?

 

They could more easily put the 30 million without healthcare on Medicaid and through their filing of tax forms, determine who is able to afford the (Medicaid) premiums and tax them if appropriate.

 

Government has a way of inefficiently doing things.

 

There will be more constraints than now with existing insurance (one size doesn't fit all).

 

Medicare for All will be charged on a basis that is similar to Medicare payments (the more money you earn, the more the premiums are).  No insurance works like that (except government plans).


This is why some D-candidates are offering a revamped Medicare type plan that will allow private insurance to co-exist. They believe ( as do I ) that people should be allowed to choose. The uninsured would automatically be enrolled in Medicare, and it would be an option for everyone else.

 

There are various theories floating among these candidates a to how it might be accomplished. Some want to fix ACA and add the public option, and some would build Medicare into a public option. In most cases they will roll Medicaid and CHIP into Medicare for just one program. This means a person would get the same health care coverage no matter where they live.

 

Either way, they believe that they can negotiate lower drug prices with big pharma through Medicare / public option, and also lower other costs. Most of these theoretical plans would have premiums and co-pays and limit out-of-pocket expenses. The idea is to make a better system with better coverage and lower costs that would encourage people to sign up and move over from private insurance.

 

But here's where it gets sticky. What requirements will they put on private insurance? Coverage for pre-existing conditions is a no-brainer. Med for Amer sets the bar fairly high with fewer options. In my opinion, a lot would have to be negotiated, to ever get it passed through Congress. That's why some D's prefer to build off of the ACA which already allows for gold / silver / bronze categories, and just add the public option for the uninsured and those who want it.

 

Biden, Klobuchar, Bennet, and other moderates want to improve the ACA and add a public option.  Mayor Pete supports a public option and choice of private health care, but haven't heard him speak to details. Beto supports Med for Amer. Kamala Harris' latest plan is similar to Med for Amer with 10 years to phase out private insurance. Warren and Sanders are supporting MFA which would be tax funded with cradle to grave coverage (at least in theory). 

 

But back to @CriticalThinking 's point : They have to get elected, first. I heard similar sentiments from Chris Matthews on Hardball. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
214
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
206
Views

Note to Seniors from Dems

206 Views
Message 28 of 68

Laurie said, "One more point, WE should not give Trump that much power. His base (some 38%) is controlling what issues should be debated like they normally are??? "

 

She is right on target. This forum is a perfect example. Trump and Fox repeatedly go after AOC because they want to make her the face of the Democratic party, and our forum members fall into the trap. Other than Fox and Trump, who cares what AOC says or does? She's nothing more than a first year congresswoman. Stop responding to the bait.

 

Yes, the Dems should define the debate. One area where I would like to see them go is Trump's character. I should say, lack of character. Trump is a pathological liar. Just last week, he accused a former U.S. President of murder. The Dems should repeatedly pound him on this critical issue.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
206
Views
Super Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
210
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

210 Views
Message 29 of 68

@Laurie42010 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Laurie, asked an excellent question. We're the only country in the Western World where the government doesn't provide a health insurance system for all citizens. We are instead a for profit health care system and that brings inherent problems and conflicts.

 

Having said the above, right now, removing Trump from office is far more important than fighting a battle to get MFA. In that battle, telling people they will NOT have a choice would be a huge mistake that could cost the election.

 

At this point in time, the Dems should concentrate on going after Trump.


With all due respect, WHY is it people don't understand they are able to do both! They can with their campaign platforms explain how the current president is so destructive to every foundation this country built  to build on while also making/striving for progress?


One more point, WE should not give Trump that much power. His base (some 38%) is controlling what issues should be debated like they normally are??? You give him far too much POWER over us, imo. All the facts about why he should not be given such priority of our country is exposed everyday, so people are already aware of the fact of why this was a mistake made by our country, imo.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
210
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
211
Views

Re: Note to Seniors from Dems

211 Views
Message 30 of 68

@Laurie42010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Laurie42010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Laurie42010 wrote:

I can't help but ask, are the people so opposed to the "Medicare for All" system that afraid of the whole health insurance and pharma industry?  These organizations/corporations should be more concerned about the care/coverage for the people to keep them healthy BEFORE serious illness strikes and not we will cover THIS if/when illness appears, which is all about a profit driven system not a overall welfare of human life system, imo.  If they have money to put into the whole lobbist system that again shows they will invest in "other" before the actual people.


I can't answer for "all" the people opposed to Medicare for all but I can answer for myself.

 

I am against Medicare for All because:

 

Only 9% of the people in America (30 million are without healthcare insurance) AND the government will take over healthcare for all 330 million people.  Why should 91% not have what they're used to with the old healthcare insurance they currently have?

 

They could more easily put the 30 million without healthcare on Medicaid and through their filing of tax forms, determine who is able to afford the (Medicaid) premiums and tax them if appropriate.

 

Government has a way of inefficiently doing things.

 

There will be more constraints than now with existing insurance (one size doesn't fit all).

 

Medicare for All will be charged on a basis that is similar to Medicare payments (the more money you earn, the more the premiums are).  No insurance works like that (except government plans).


I refer to the below article from Feb. 11, 2019 - CNBC - "This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html

 

This my family experienced first hand back in the mid 70's when my mother had cancer, went through all the combative "experimental" measures to keep her alive for her three young daughters, but was just not ever going to be enough to save her. So.....why don't they (health industry) stop spending money on lobbying and put it to r&d to find cures?


They could more easily put the 30 million without healthcare on Medicaid and through their filing of tax forms, determine who is able to afford the (Medicaid) premiums and tax them if appropriate.

 

This would take care of this situation!


Sorry @NOTHAPPENING , I disagree. I believe WE need to end the whole profit system that is charge of the health and welfare of the citizens. Profits over people just is not working on behalf of the people in my opinion.


Now you know the answer to your original question ( "are the people so opposed to the "Medicare for All" system that afraid of the whole health insurance and pharma industry".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
211
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors