• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare in America

Health care in america

  • Medicare for All

    Votes: 25 69.4%
  • Keep it.like it is

    Votes: 11 30.6%

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
If Medicare is made an option, along with choose a supplement provided by a private insurer, and allowing those who have coverage through an employer to keep that coverage, eventually most will switch to the Medicare option eventually. What people want is to keep their doctors, not necessarily their insurers. The affordability will speak for itself.

Except that the entire medicare for all system would collapse under it's own weight withing 10 years. Medicare for Seniors is just hanging by a thread.
 
By Medicare for all do you mean everyone on a government subsidized health care plan that is going broke?

You do realize that many doctors won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients because the reimbursements are so low? My doctor keeps my wife and I on because we were patients for years before we went on Medicare, but he does not take on new Medicare patients. he says it just isn't worth it.

And you do know Medicare doesn't cover all costs. They pay about 80% and have co-pays. That's why seniors buy tie-in plans. Would you provide those tie-in plans for free? How much would you charge for the drug coverage, would it also be free for everyone?

Maybe let people buy into Medicare at a break even rate, which wouldn't be subsidized like seniors are, and then find a doctor who accepts Medicare patients. That would mean paying more than seniors do, but maybe cheaper than private insurance. But there's no way to have "Medicare for all" and have everybody subsidized.
 
Except that the entire medicare for all system would collapse under it's own weight withing 10 years. Medicare for Seniors is just hanging by a thread.

Canada is doing very well. The sky is not falling
 
We all know the healthcare payment system in America is broken. Too many fingers in the pot. Healthcare is.way too expensive. A cash cow the participants don't want disturbed. Lots.of lobbiest money there.

The rest of the developed world has health care for all its citizens and.spend much less per capita then we do w8th our bastard system.

Well polls show over 70% of Americans approve of Medicare for all.

What say you

Medicare for All

Or

Keep it like it is

We really can't "keep it like it is" anymore, it's just too expensive and out of control. The Genie's out of the bottle and the left is after the industry, and rightfully so. The Republicans of course will continue to do nothing. The insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry rationalize it with "research and development", which is how companies today get away with calling their places "campuses"; which they are not. What's complicating things is the immigrant side of the story: which is more expensive, a little premium on the front end or tax payers pickin up the unregulated bill on the back end? For my money I'd rather have the "medicare option"... as a choice. My monthly health insurance premiums should be no more expensive than my monthly premium for auto insurance: state farm et al are loaded with money, so - in my view THAT is the only thing that will save the health insurance industry.
 
Medicare For All is Obamacare 2.0. This, too, is designed to fail. If we get it, the Left will make the case that Medicare isn't working (which is true). That people are having to pay more for their medical visits because Medicare isn't covering everything (which is also true, it never has). Then they would say that they had thought it was going to help everybody because if they had eliminated the private insurance companies everyone wouldn't have to worry about paying for their visits ever again (which isn't true). They will say funding for Medicare will run out (which will probably and NEEDS to happen, IMO).

In addition to blaming everyone to the Right of them, the Left will finally declare that Medicare For All isn't working out and everyone must be put on to Medicaid. It'll be the only thing they can afford to do to have everyone "covered" (paying more in taxes). Why? Simple: it's cheap, but also not good. In other words, it's welfare. People won't get everything covered. You would be at the complete mercy at the government when it comes to not only your health, but also your finances. The government will say you can only make so much to be on it. With the Medicaid program, the government can kick you off if they see you making more than what you're suppose to for this program. Not only you would be kicked off, you would still have to pay high taxes for something that you're not even on.

Working in the health field myself, we have had many people who got kicked off Medicaid and had to go through another program that helps those who don't have much money. However, those private programs would be eliminated because the original program, Medicare For All, wiped out private insurances and programs. So you would be up sh!t's creek after that and it would be nigh impossible to find someone that can help. You can't even afford to get back onto Medicaid itself because it costs money to be on it. In conclusion, Medicare For All, again, is Obamacare 2.0, which will fall apart, then Medicaid For All, which can interpret into Welfare For All, will be our single payer/socialized medicine system. People will be out of money, on the streets, and the uber wealthy will only be found inside the government. It'll be like San Francisco and Los Angeles but on a much grander scale.
 
Allow insurance to be sold across state lines.

That does nothing. I am against Medicare for all, but that would be useless unless you created anti-trust exemptions for health insurers and allowed them to form huge national networks and thus use their buying power to force providers into lower prices. Insurers cannot control costs if they don't negotiate a provider network in your area. What good does buying insurance from a insurer 3 states away do you if they don't have a provider network in your area?
 
I am of course in absolute favor of medicare for all.
 
We all know the healthcare payment system in America is broken. Too many fingers in the pot. Healthcare is.way too expensive. A cash cow the participants don't want disturbed. Lots.of lobbiest money there.

The rest of the developed world has health care for all its citizens and.spend much less per capita then we do w8th our bastard system.

Well polls show over 70% of Americans approve of Medicare for all.

What say you

Medicare for All

Or

Keep it like it is

This is not a dichotomy. There are a host of possibilities that either include neither of those answers or both of those answers.

I, for one, believe in not fixing what is not broken, but absolutely is. We have a large part of our population that has employer based healthcare that are happy with that healthcare. The problem with employer based healthcare, at least prior to the PPACA, is that people's healthcare was tied to their continued employment creating almost a de facto indentured servitude in some circumstances. That is not in the public interest. The PPACA took a giant step toward unbundling healthcare from employers, which was a good thing. It, for a variety reasons often not by the fault of its design but via political sabotage, did not provide affordable insurance in many markets, leaving people still apart from health insurance.

Though Medicare for All might be a noble long-term goal, its far too disruptive to be considered in the near term. That said, offering Medicare as a private pay option in the PPACA program AND lowering the cost of Medicate eligibility to 50 or 55, which would move the least healthy group off private insurance (lowering costs to private carriers) and make them the most healthy in the Medicare pool (creating a private subsidy for Medicare) would make a lot of sense, IMHO.
 
We all know the healthcare payment system in America is broken. Too many fingers in the pot. Healthcare is.way too expensive. A cash cow the participants don't want disturbed. Lots.of lobbiest money there.

The rest of the developed world has health care for all its citizens and.spend much less per capita then we do w8th our bastard system.

Well polls show over 70% of Americans approve of Medicare for all.

What say you

Medicare for All

Or

Keep it like it is
It's not as simple as those two options.

But under the assumption for the sake of this poll that it was, I would have to go with M4A.
 
This is not a dichotomy. There are a host of possibilities that either include neither of those answers or both of those answers.

I, for one, believe in not fixing what is not broken, but absolutely is. We have a large part of our population that has employer based healthcare that are happy with that healthcare. The problem with employer based healthcare, at least prior to the PPACA, is that people's healthcare was tied to their continued employment creating almost a de facto indentured servitude in some circumstances. That is not in the public interest. The PPACA took a giant step toward unbundling healthcare from employers, which was a good thing. It, for a variety reasons often not by the fault of its design but via political sabotage, did not provide affordable insurance in many markets, leaving people still apart from health insurance.

Though Medicare for All might be a noble long-term goal, its far too disruptive to be considered in the near term. That said, offering Medicare as a private pay option in the PPACA program AND lowering the cost of Medicate eligibility to 50 or 55, which would move the least healthy group off private insurance (lowering costs to private carriers) and make them the most healthy in the Medicare pool (creating a private subsidy for Medicare) would make a lot of sense, IMHO.
Personally, I think employer-based healthcare should end entirely.

If your healthcare is tied to your employment, you may make career advancement and/or life choices around that fact, which is not a positive effect.

I'd far rather it be completely separate.
 
Personally, I think employer-based healthcare should end entirely.

If your healthcare is tied to your employment, you may make career advancement and/or life choices around that fact, which is not a positive effect.

I'd far rather it be completely separate.

And guess who opposes that idea with a vengeance? EVERY major union. For every union employee, the employing company pays into a union owned and run health care (and retirement plan). My wife was an executive for the National Union of Boilermakers before she retired. They knew a major draw to union membership was the benefit plan, mainly health care and retirement. No way did they want to lose that. And they will fight any kind of government run national health care plan to the death.
 
Personally, I think employer-based healthcare should end entirely.

If your healthcare is tied to your employment, you may make career advancement and/or life choices around that fact, which is not a positive effect.

I'd far rather it be completely separate.

I have no problem with employers offering coverage as a benefit. My problem with the employer plans is that it remanded the employee with a pre-existing condition to employment with a firm for losing or changing jobs could mean loss of healthcare.

The PPACA did make a major stride in unbundling health insurance from the employer in that it guaranteed the portability of your health coverage: pre-existing conditons could no longer preclude you from future coverage. Of course, that is not the same thing as health insurance portability, which would allow you to keep your actual insurance should you leave your employer. They could accomplish that by changing some of the COBRA laws to allow a employer insurance plan to roll into a private plan.

As someone that has played on the entrepreneurial side of the tracks much of my career, I have seen many, many persons afraid to quit their job and do something entrepreneurial because they needed the healthcare. When creative people are afraid to create, our society loses. Tying healthcare to employment is not in our collective interests.
 
Last edited:
And guess who opposes that idea with a vengeance? EVERY major union. For every union employee, the employing company pays into a union owned and run health care (and retirement plan). My wife was an executive for the National Union of Boilermakers before she retired. They knew a major draw to union membership was the benefit plan, mainly health care and retirement. No way did they want to lose that. And they will fight any kind of government run national health care plan to the death.

I don't think people should need to rely on an employer or even a union for healthcare.
 
I have no problem with employers offering coverage as a benefit. My problem with the employer plans is that it remanded the employee with a pre-existing condition to employment with a firm for losing or changing jobs could mean loss of healthcare.

The PPACA did make a major stride in unbundling health insurance from the employer in that it guaranteed the portability of your health coverage: pre-existing conditons could no longer preclude you from future coverage. Of course, that is not the same thing as health insurance portability, which would allow you to keep your actual insurance should you leave your employer. They could accomplish that by changing some of the COBRA laws to allow a employer insurance plan to roll into a private plan.

As someone that has played on the entrepreneurial side of the tracks much of my career, I have seen many, many persons afraid to quit their job and do something entrepreneurial because they needed the healthcare. When creative people are afraid to create, our society loses. Tying healthcare to employment is not in our collective interests.

COBRA is a sad joke. If you're out of work, you can't possibly afford it.
 
COBRA is a sad joke. If you're out of work, you can't possibly afford it.

Its not COBRA that is expensive, its health insurance that is expensive. When a company offers you a COBRA plan, they can only do so at their buy rate plus 15% (I believe) for administration costs. When you are offered COBRA you get to see just how much the company HAD been paying for your health insurance. Eye opening, eh? COBRA is not a sad joke. It was protection for people, particularly with pre-exisiting conditions, so their healthcare did not end the day their employment did.

My point about COBRA, however, was that they should abolish the 18 month provision and make it available to you as long as you want it. Perpetual COBRA epresents the individualizing of a corporate plan. They should also make it available for PPACA subsidies.
 
Last edited:
We all know the healthcare payment system in America is broken. Too many fingers in the pot. Healthcare is.way too expensive. A cash cow the participants don't want disturbed. Lots.of lobbiest money there.

The rest of the developed world has health care for all its citizens and.spend much less per capita then we do w8th our bastard system.

Well polls show over 70% of Americans approve of Medicare for all.

What say you

Medicare for All

Or

Keep it like it is

What a stupid poll. No one really wants to keep it like it is, not even Trump or the Republicans. But, that doesn't mean they want MFA. By the way, when Americans say they want MFA that is in response to a generic question. When finding out about the cost details and taxes, that support plummets.

Most Americans favor Medicare-for-All until they find out what's in it
 
Last edited:
What a stupid poll. No one really wants to keep it like it is, not even Trump or the Republicans. But, that doesn't mean they want MFA. By the way, when Americans say they want MFA that is in response to a generic question. When finding out about the cost details and taxes, that support plummets.

Most Americans favor Medicare-for-All until they find out what's in it

You know what really is so ludicrous to me. when republicans talk about how we are going.to pay for this healthcare. Guys we are already paying for it. About 3 trillion dollars a year. Most feel by going to a medicare for all we could actually reduce that. Hell per capita we spend quite a bit more than any other country with health care for all. Only ones that a bitching are big pharma (because they know the health care reform will come with negotiated prices for drugs) and the insurance companies and HMO's. These guys have huge lobbying machines buying up politicians.

We are spending the money already. It will just be collected and disbursed in a different way.
 
The problem with Medicare (for some) in its current form is that even with the universal payroll (FICA) tax (paid mostly by folks not yet getting Medicare benefits) and the premiums (paid by those of us getting Medicare benefits) is that it requires (or soon will) subsidies from general revenue over and above that dedicated revenue stream.

What Medicare does do (well?) is to limit what it pays to care providers. Of course, that still requires patient co-pays of (at least) 20% and/or 'private' supplemental insurance which would become illegal under M4A proposals.

Not all MFA proposals spell the death of private insurers. Several candidates stated that they want Medicare to be an option, but those who like what they already have should be able to continue to choose that coverage. Same goes for those of us who have Medicare supplements.

But I think that what most people really want to keep is their current doctor. Any plan that allows them to do so while lowering their monthly costs is going to sway them.
 
Some do and others don't. I have Medicare coverage and went for my annual doctor visit. I recently received a bill for about $190 with a "deduction" stating that Medicare was covering about $85 and that I must pay (out of pocket) the balance of about $105. I asked (at the clinic's billing counter) why I had to pay that much and was told that I had not yet reached my Medicare (annual) deductible. That made no sense to me since the bill indicated that Medicare was paying about $85.

Why would Medicare pay the care provider anything before I had reached my (annual) deductible? If Medicare covered 80% (that $85?) then why is my "20%" more than the total paid for by Medicare?

Sounds like your doctor's office is confused. What Medicare deductible? I've never paid one. I don't pay one with my supplement, either, but I pay more per month for my supplement than most .. my choice. What your doctor should be doing is accepting the amount paid to them by Medicare as your total cost. That's how it's supposed to work. Medicare sets up standard fees for medical services, and providers who accept Medicare patients agree to accept those amounts.
 
Nonsense, those now getting Medicaid/CHIP (for free) fully expect that M4A would cost them the same - nothing at all (over their current federal payroll/income tax bills). M4A (in current bills) mandates that no private insurance can be offered (for medically necessary care) and that there would be no premiums, deductibles or co-pays.

What current bills?
 
I think what ttwtt78640 is saying/acknowledging is that providers do not have to participate in any given plan or accept its rates. As a provider I can opt out of Medicare and thus not have to accept Medicare's rate for the service I provide. Medicare beneficiaries then have the choice to pay me cash, or maybe get some sort of out-of-network benefit, or just try to find someone else in the Medicare network to get the best level of coverage.

Obviously if the whole market were in one of these networks whose rates providers currently find insufficient, it could eventually give providers more of a forceful ultimatum, and they would have to either figure out a way to make providing that service worth it, or they'd have to continue to only accept cash and risk losing patients over cost. But as these shifts are occurring, those who have that coverage may be frustrated with a perceived lack of options, which they might interpret as crappy coverage.

I've been on Medicare for 2 1/2 years, in both California and Colorado, and not one provider has turned me away. Not the world-renowned specialist I was referred to in Beverly Hills, or the hoity toity Colorado Eye Institute here in Colorado Springs. I also had total knee replacement surgery, done by a top orthopedist at a brand new state-of-the-art hospital. Not one dime left my wallet for any of it, other than for prescription drugs.

So, where's the "crappy coverage?"
 
Back
Top Bottom