And Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Japan and every other western nation. They all have universal HC coverage. We insist that paying a minimum 20% surcharge on all HC coverage to insurers for cutting the checks to providers with our money is the best system and then we complain about how expensive it is.
Under fire from whom? A hole right wingers?
Granted, there is no need to ban private healthcare, if rich people want special treatment they should be able to pay for it. But companies should not be making profits over people's healthcare. it's disgusting, and it should really piss off everybody how much money corporations are making off people's health and well being. Need universal healthcare, and the option for premium for the rich could still be available
It's a lot of eggs to put in one basket; and while I'm not anti-government, there is definitely a lot that can go wrong if that much control only lies in one entity. That said though, I don't think we'll ever see a healthcare system similar to Canada or certain European countries. I think the best we can do is a hybrid system where you still have private healthcare options, and a government run program to cover basics.
What is so "huge" about a cost of living multiplier? You are exaggerating the difficulties because you have no faith in America. Medicare is one of the most cost effective and popular programs in the country.
That is why I favor a "public option" based on expanded Medicaid. Set the premiums at 10% of AGI (initially) and see what happens.
Medicare uses private insurance companies to cut its checks to providers.
Universal health care coverage does not require a single payer or the abolition of private insurance companies.
You seem to have missed my point entirely. Pick any one of those 'successful' UHC countries and hand them the contract to offer UHC to our nation (based on a per capita bid). That seems like a far better bet than letting our corrupt batch of congress critters get together with their big money campaign cash providers and lobbyists to invent a UHC system from scratch.
That is why I favor a "public option" based on expanded Medicaid. Set the premiums at 10% of AGI (initially) and see what happens.
OK, then why not select (based on best bid price) one of those nations to run our national healthcare system? I have long advocated for mandatory auto liability insurance to be run by a single-payer (funded by a tax on motor fuel) but few want to give up having their personal choice of insurance provider.
doctors and specialists in my area don't take medicaid. so what do i do?
That is why I favor a "public option" based on expanded Medicaid. Set the premiums at 10% of AGI (initially) and see what happens.
So you want to keep paying them billions for cutting checks? Medicare has 2% administrative costs vs. 17% for private insurers.
And if that were the debate, that would be one thing. Except the debate is still between one side who wants UHC and the other side whose position is "UHC is commie fascist marxist socialism and oh by the way look at Venezuela and DON'T LOOK AT CANADA WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T LOOK AT CANADA OR ANY ONE OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES THAT HAS SUCCESSFULLY PUT UHC INTO PLACE."
[NOTE - Article headline too long for forum format - truncation identical to the one done on the FOX News main page so don't blame me if the thread title is misleading]
From FOX News
Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care plans: ‘That’s not American’
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for calling for private health care plans to be abolished -- the latest plank is what is becoming an increasingly left-wing platform from the California Democrat.
Harris, who announced her 2020 bid for the White House last week, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper Monday night if people could keep their current health care plan under her “Medicare-for-All” plan. She indicated that people could not, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.
KAMALA HARRIS VOWS TO GET RIS OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS: 'LET'S ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT. LET'S MOVE ON'
"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told Tapper.
"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued. "Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on."
COMMENT:-
The odds on Mr. Trump's supporters making any distinction between "a call to eliminate private (for profit) health care insurance plans" and "a call to eliminate private health care" are slim to non-existent.
Of course, I'd never suggest that FOX News was deliberately fostering a belief that the Democrats wanted to eliminate ALL private health care in the United States of America and turn America into a socialist dictatorship where every aspect of daily life would be regulated and you could be "declared redundant" by some "state death panel" at any moment (especially if you were deemed to be "opposed to the state") - but others will.
Don't choose the public option. In a about three weeks I become Medicare covered - I will soon see if that helps reduce my annual medical care costs. I do know that it will cost over $1600/year and I now spend about $350 to $400/year on medical care costs.
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites (central planners?) who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
What will that do to our taxes tho? Having them take a large chunk for this from my paycheck would be no better than the ridiculous amount they want on the exchanges (non-subsidized).
I had a question in my earlier post about this:
Should people living where the overall costs are less be penalized by paying the same taxes for medicaid/single payer in more expensive areas?
Or should people move to where the care is more affordable? Or choose smaller facilities?
Can you or Fox actually find something wrong about every single American having health care that they don't have to pay out of their pocket from? That's quite bizarre if you do.
She proposes that everyone has a right to health care and people should not need to get permission for their health care from a private insurance company. 'Medicare for all' is what she's proposing, the same plan as Bernie Sanders. Everyone gets access to healthy care without having to go through paperwork and approvals by a private insurer.
Not surprisingly, Kamala Harris' plan will not be popular among those invested in the private health care insurance business. 'Medicare for All' holds out the promise of addressing this problem, and finally reaching the elusive goal of universal coverage, by automatically enrolling everybody in the government plan and then using regulation to set prices for doctors, hospitals, and the rest of the health care industry.
Typically, such proposals envision people paying for coverage entirely through taxes or income-related premiums, with little or no co-payments, deductibles, and other forms of cost-sharing.
This is so intentionally misleading and not factual in the least. This is more Fox propaganda to get their base all riled up, and look......it sure worked on you, didn't it?
Can you or Fox actually find something wrong about every single American having health care that they don't have to pay out of their pocket from? That's quite bizarre if you do. Let's be clear about what Kamala Harris is proposing before we get too deep into the conspiracy theory weeds and hysteria connected to those bogus theories.
She proposes that everyone has a right to health care and people should not need to get permission for their health care from a private insurance company. 'Medicare for all' is what she's proposing, the same plan as Bernie Sanders. Everyone gets access to healthy care without having to go through paperwork and approvals by a private insurer.
It's my opinion that 'Medicare for All' will never fly. There's just too much money in control of both the health care industry and big pharma to ever get even close to regulating prices for services.
I'm surprised sometimes how often you and I came to the same conclusions even though we're technically on opposite "sides".
And we saw during the ACA process how beholden democrats are to health insurance companies.
Of course that fits my model that its really competing teams of money backing the Dems and Republicans.
Health insurance relies on American paychecks so they back Dems.
Yeah well i will tell you know my mother in law has medicare and her supplement plan runs about 350-450 a month just for her.
medicare doesn't cover everything then there are all the co-pays and deductibles.
The purpose of insurance is not to cover all routine maintenance costs - it is only for the rare, unexpected and expensive events in life. Can you imagine the cost of auto insurance premiums if it covered worn tire replacement, tune-ups and oil changes?
Hence health insurance doesn't really work very much like a lot of other types of insurance. And numerous Republicans (let alone Democrats) have admitted they think people with pre-existing conditions should be able to buy into insurance to obtain coverage for (among other things) that condition they already had. So this means there's bipartisan agreement that the pre-existing exclusion ban should remain, which is probably the single most anti-insurance concept ever, given that real insurance cannot be forced to be offered to people who already experienced the insurable event.
Meaning I think we're going to have to get over the fact that health insurance isn't being regarded the way actual insurance typically works. We'll keep calling it health "insurance," but it has already been operating according to a non-traditional set of rules and standards.
I'm not saying "I want" to do this or that, I'm pointing out that calls to abolish insurance companies are odd given Medicare itself apparently does not obviate the need for insurance companies, as evidenced by the fact that Medicare uses insurance companies to administer itself. Therefore any proclamations that we need to abolish insurance companies, by decree or de facto, seems to be a populist appeal rather than an honestly policy recommendation.
I'm sure it will be a prerequisite talking point for 100% of the Democratic presidential candidates. They will all proclaim we must pass single payer and extinguish insurance companies, despite the impracticality and unspecified answers to a litany of extremely difficult issues with that proposal. We are much closer to a multi-payer UHC system than a single-payer one. Hillary understands this. The Democratic candidates will pretend not to.
The purpose of insurance is not to cover all routine maintenance costs - it is only for the rare, unexpected and expensive events in life. Can you imagine the cost of auto insurance premiums if it covered worn tire replacement, tune-ups and oil changes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?