Health Insurance vs Medicare for All

[Idiometer]

I don't think you really understand what "catastrophic insurance" is. Here...this will help you: https://www.insurance.com/health-in...nd-cons-of-catastrophic-health-insurance.aspx

The overarching point I was trying to make is that "medicare for all" takes away choice and makes you pay whether you need it or not. That's bad government.

The IRS takes away choices, too. Are you going to stop paying income taxes?

Most Americans consider taxes to be a part of living in a civilized and (relatively) safe society. Medicare for all could be seen in the same light.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

sorry i have great healthcare coverage through my company. I don't need you or your lousy insurance scam plans.
so no i won't make you wealthy.

You wouldn't know a great plan if it slapped you in the face, most plans through employers are pretty garbage. Just saying.

And I said, people like you, made me wealthy. Not will you make me wealthy. Lol

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Actually, government is doing a pretty good job. It's called Medicare. No one tells me what doctors to see. I don't need a Healthcare Savings Account. I don't need to negotiate costs, since Medicare does that for me. As to how much is covered, Medicare covers a standard 80%. I don't want to pay that extra bit because of my pre-existing conditions, so I pay an insurance company for a supplement. My total annual cost is just over $3,300 per year, and that's because my supplement covers everything Medicare does not. I pay ZERO deductibles and ZERO co-payments, and see whatever specialists I want as often as I need.

Medicare for all would increase what everyone currently pays via a payroll deduction, but you wouldn't have to wait until you're 65 to get coverage like mine and it would be boatloads less costly than what you have now. The only problematic bit is prescription costs. Part D plans are the most convoluted pieces of shyte in the industry, and they're all alike. If everyone was on Medicare, perhaps they could more easily negotiate those costs as well.

Most physicians approve of the idea. The only losers would be the bottom-feeding insurance companies, which is why we don't already have it. Their lobbyists have seriously deep pockets.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program

My bottom feeding company is lobbying for...

So...

 

[Idiometer]

Why?

Jobs?

Money?

Profit?

And then there is incentive....you take profit out of the equation and a lot of the development also goes by the wayside

Why should a company spend 20 million developing technology that won’t reap them 100 million? Greed is good at times

Innovation and development are great, but too few of us can afford to avail themselves of new drugs or technology.

 

[ludin]

You wouldn't know a great plan if it slapped you in the face, most plans through employers are pretty garbage. Just saying.

And I said, people like you, made me wealthy. Not will you make me wealthy. Lol

actually my plan is really good.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

actually my plan is really good.

yeah, i've heard that so many times, and have been able to beat both price and coverage every single time.

It's actually a psychological tick that I can manipulate to make people more likely to buy. Buy creating a sense of outrage that their employers have been pissing down their back and telling them it's raining. I even wrote a book on it, that's selling well in India right now. Relationship Selling.

 

[independentusa]

which is why doctors don't like treating medicare patients. It costs more to treat them than they get paid.
it is why some doctors have stopped taking medicare or new medicare patients.

that doesn't include fraud or the extra cost of supplement plans because medicare doesn't cover everything.

those supplement plans are more expensive for 1 person than what i pay per month to cover my entire family.

so more expensive.
less coverage

umm what benefit do i get out of it again? ol yea more of my money goes to the government great just want i need.

sorry i can't afford all your free stuff.

What a load, you apparently know little about the health care system. The reason our health care system costs so much includes several factors and they do not include the cost of s single medicare visit. One major factor is the fact that we over purchase very expensive equipment and then either under use or over use of it. An example is that at one time there was only one CAT scan in my health care district. It was being operated at about 90% capacity and to add one you had to go through a health care planning committee that decided if there was an actual need for another. Then Reagan came along and decided to throw out the system and allow everyone to buy what they wanted. Now in the same health care district there are as many as ten such CAT scans. So many of them are being used under their capacity so the high fixed costs of running one has to be divided between the actual patient usage. The other thing that can happen is the over use f the equipment, using it for problems that could be diagnosed with cheaper methods just to keep the equipment in use and to reduce the cost per patient. Health care planning was once the law of the land so this change happened all over the country. Hundreds or even thousand of CAT scanners became hundreds of thousand of CAT scans. Medicare though looks at the cost of a scan run at a reasonable rate of capacity and pays that amount for a scan. It may not cover all of the costs, but it is reasonable.

 

[Idiometer]

Also, with employer provided coverage your contribution is deducted from your paycheck. You don't notice it. And if you have a good job, you get better health insurance. You don't want...*gasp*...Medicare.

I have great health insurance from my employer. I believe in universal health care. But I think it would be an easier sell if it not only reduced costs but meant I kept more moneya in my paycheck.

Finally, much has to be done about fraud. Fraud is major problem with Medicare.



https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article225176275.html

I was still employed when I turned 65, and I couldn't WAIT to get off of the expensive plan my employer provided and go on Medicare. I pay $3,300 per YEAR for Medicare and a supplement. I have no deductibles and no co-payments and can see any doctor I want. I've yet to encounter one who doesn't accept Medicare patients, even the stellar, top gastroenterologist in the country at Cedars Sinai in Beverly ****ing Hills. You seem uninformed or misinformed on that. And Medicare administrators are catching the fraudsters. Do you think there is none with your private coverage?

Health insurance should never have become a perk of employment. Our life and death issues should not be decided by some bean counter in an air conditioned insurance company office. I'm glad you like your current coverage, but too many Americans pay through the nose for coverage, only to be told that this or that life-saving medication or procedure is not covered. I'm tired of Americans losing their homes just to pay for care.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I am in favor of finding fixes to our HC system. In fact was in favor of Medicare for all rather than ACA. Still think it is workable but people have to understand the complications. For example most people who are not covered by the government via Medicade,Medicare or the VA have have the majority of their costs paid by their employer. So we have to have an adult discussion of who will pick up those costs.

Many large companies are actually self-insured. Insurance companies are the administrators of the policies of the companies. So there is no one great evil that if we just fix all our cost problems go away.

I have been saying this for a while now. All everyone talks about is the increased tax burden. Wouldn't it make sense to include the current corporate rate into that mix?
If a company is currently employing 1000 people and pays an average of 10,000 per person per year for insurance for those employees wouldn't it be beneficial to them to pay say 8,000,000 instead of 10,000,000?
They don't seem to be included in the healthcare for all debate.

 

[ludin]

What a load, you apparently know little about the health care system. The reason our health care system costs so much includes several factors and they do not include the cost of s single medicare visit. One major factor is the fact that we over purchase very expensive equipment and then either under use or over use of it. An example is that at one time there was only one CAT scan in my health care district. It was being operated at about 90% capacity and to add one you had to go through a health care planning committee that decided if there was an actual need for another. Then Reagan came along and decided to throw out the system and allow everyone to buy what they wanted. Now in the same health care district there are as many as ten such CAT scans. So many of them are being used under their capacity so the high fixed costs of running one has to be divided between the actual patient usage. The other thing that can happen is the over use f the equipment, using it for problems that could be diagnosed with cheaper methods just to keep the equipment in use and to reduce the cost per patient. Health care planning was once the law of the land so this change happened all over the country. Hundreds or even thousand of CAT scanners became hundreds of thousand of CAT scans. Medicare though looks at the cost of a scan run at a reasonable rate of capacity and pays that amount for a scan. It may not cover all of the costs, but it is reasonable.

actually i know a great deal. i have spent a few year researching it which is why i can call out the BS from you people when i see it.
ACtually it is required by law i do believe that hospitals must upgrade their machinery every few years.

other countries do not have this requirement which is why you will find some of them still using an xray machine from the 80's.
in fact a lot of them still use old and probably outdated equipment.

you point out the issue with government healthcare. i don't want a committee telling me i can or can't have a CT scan. if my doctor says i need a CT scan
i should be able to go and get a CT scan.

as a person that owns and runs the CT machine if you are not paying my cost to operate it then i am not taking you. hence the issue with medicare and other government
healthcare plans. hence the issue with doctors dropping out of these things.

 

[ludin]

I have been saying this for a while now. All everyone talks about is the increased tax burden. Wouldn't it make sense to include the current corporate rate into that mix?
If a company is currently employing 1000 people and pays an average of 10,000 per person per year for insurance for those employees wouldn't it be beneficial to them to pay say 8,000,000 instead of 10,000,000?
They don't seem to be included in the healthcare for all debate.

because corporations don't pay taxes. they pass it on to the employee's and consumers.
you make them pay 10m instead of 8m they will make you pay 12m.

 

[ludin]

I was still employed when I turned 65, and I couldn't WAIT to get off of the expensive plan my employer provided and go on Medicare. I pay $3,300 per YEAR for Medicare and a supplement. I have no deductibles and no co-payments and can see any doctor I want. I've yet to encounter one who doesn't accept Medicare patients, even the stellar, top gastroenterologist in the country at Cedars Sinai in Beverly ****ing Hills. You seem uninformed or misinformed on that. And Medicare administrators are catching the fraudsters. Do you think there is none with your private coverage?

Health insurance should never have become a perk of employment. Our life and death issues should not be decided by some bean counter in an air conditioned insurance company office. I'm glad you like your current coverage, but too many Americans pay through the nose for coverage, only to be told that this or that life-saving medication or procedure is not covered. I'm tired of Americans losing their homes just to pay for care.

blame FDR is the one that caused it to happen.

 

[ludin]

yeah, i've heard that so many times, and have been able to beat both price and coverage every single time.

It's actually a psychological tick that I can manipulate to make people more likely to buy. Buy creating a sense of outrage that their employers have been pissing down their back and telling them it's raining. I even wrote a book on it, that's selling well in India right now. Relationship Selling.

I seriously doubt you can beat what i am paying and what i get to cover my entire family.
those tricks don't work on me because i know them. I use to use them all the time when i was
selling stuff myself.

 

[gdgyva]

It's odd.... The defense industry seems to innovate pretty well and they only have one customer.... hmmmm....

What, you think they give new weapons to the government?

Billions upon billions in new contracts are awarded each year

And the competition to get them is fierce

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I seriously doubt you can beat what i am paying and what i get to cover my entire family.
those tricks don't work on me because i know them. I use to use them all the time when i was
selling stuff myself.

lol, it's like a fish telling a shark your teeth won't work on me because I used to bite other fish.

Ya know, I haven't been in the field in a couple years, I should fly down to the States and do surprise ride alongs with rookies this year.

 

[ludin]

lol, it's like a fish telling a shark your teeth won't work on me because I used to bite other fish.

Ya know, I haven't been in the field in a couple years, I should fly down to the States and do surprise ride alongs with rookies this year.

No it is like a shark telling another shark i smell the same blood in the water.

 

[veritas1]

Only morons think that "free" healthcare is in any way free or that it is better than that which is provided by a competitive free market system. You can always change insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc. How are you going to change from a government permanent monopoly after it fails?

 

[Middle_Ground]

because corporations don't pay taxes. they pass it on to the employee's and consumers.
you make them pay 10m instead of 8m they will make you pay 12m.

I guess you reversed my numbers...it would cost them less, so our product prices would go down. Win win for everyone....right?
I mean if all costs are passed on to consumers then all savings should be too....right?

 

[Middle_Ground]

Only morons think that "free" healthcare is in any way free or that it is better than that which is provided by a competitive free market system. You can always change insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc. How are you going to change from a government permanent monopoly after it fails?

Actually right now there are states where only 1 insurer is in their market there is no choice for them...is that okay?

 

[Rich2018]

Only morons think that "free" healthcare is in any way free...

You pay for it out of your taxes.


No finding an insurance company who'll argue over the cost of what you need.


You get sick, you go to hospital, they cure/fix you and you leave.

You never get your credit card out once.


And 4 weeks later you don't get a bill for $50,000 or more from the damn hospital.

 

[ludin]

I guess you reversed my numbers...it would cost them less, so our product prices would go down. Win win for everyone....right?
I mean if all costs are passed on to consumers then all savings should be too....right?

lmao you don't know business.

 

[Xelor]

I hold an equity position, and several job titles and positions and licenses within the Insurance Industry.

Switching to Medicare for all wouldn't bother me one bit. I'd lose a bit of income, sure at first, but people not having to pay super high premiums or are to afraid to leave their work insurance would be out looking for supplemental insurances which are more profitable for us. They would have more income to invest in things like annuities, and life insurance, or Long term care. All very profitable for me.

So yeah, my renewals (income I get from people renewing their policies every year that I sold them when I was an agent) would take a hit. Probably drop below 100k, but I'd be clearing three times underwriting all the new supplemental. People want to spend money.

And our employees are all contracted free agents that are paid 100 percent on commission, they would get more sales on cheaper supplements when people have more disposable income. So they are all for it as well.

But that's just my company, and it's 37 subsidiaries, 6 sister companies and one parent company. Can't speak for the others.

Red:
Okay.

Blue:
Aside from long term care coverage, that, I'm sure, is what you would hope happens or act to effect, but presuming that be what transpires strikes me as "counting unhatched chickens," particularly given the nascence of the "Medicare for all" notion.

• There'd need to be changes in Medicare's provisions to alter the demand for long-term care coverage.
• The notion that "Medicare for all" necessarily means Medicare's provisions would remain as they are is dubitable at best.
  
  Perhaps you've seen more detailed expositions of what exactly "Medicare for all" entails.
  
  I have yet to see anyone proffer details, or an explicit declaration, that speak to whether that phrase means nothing other than the current Medicare provisions and coverage (and limits to them) would simply be available to all, or whether it means that everyone would have (have affordable access to) governmentally provided health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be called "Medicare," but some or all of the terms will differ from those of the current Medicare insurance program.

Pink:
That they do; however, health insurance (not life, investment/retirement or casualty ones, none of which I mentioned) is only slightly more enthusiastically purchased than are cemetary plots. People don't buy health insurance because they expressly want health insurance; they buy it to mitigate the risk of going broke paying out-of-pocket for medical care. "I demand health insurance" falls into a wholly different category of effective demand than does "I demand a trip to Bali," "I demand a new car" or "I demand a maid."

Aside:
There's some thought about that Millennials aren't all that keen to buy stuff.​

 

[ludin]

You pay for it out of your taxes.


No finding an insurance company who'll argue over the cost of what you need.


You get sick, you go to hospital, they cure/fix you and you leave.

You never get your credit card out once.


And 4 weeks later you don't get a bill for $50,000 or more from the damn hospital.

:lamo is all i have to say.

you guys have deluded yourselves.

 

[Rich2018]

:lamo is all i have to say.

you guys have deluded yourselves.

I've seen national heath work. Up close and personal you could say.

Cut 75% of the defense budget and you're almost there.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have been saying this for a while now. All everyone talks about is the increased tax burden. Wouldn't it make sense to include the current corporate rate into that mix?
If a company is currently employing 1000 people and pays an average of 10,000 per person per year for insurance for those employees wouldn't it be beneficial to them to pay say 8,000,000 instead of 10,000,000?
They don't seem to be included in the healthcare for all debate.

Are you seriously suggesting that employers would have to pay a UHC tax of $8K/year for each employee?