• 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!

Medicare for ALL Americans

Thunder

Thunder

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
31,089
Reaction score
4,384
Location
The greatest city on Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What would be the problem with expanding Medicare to allow folks under 65 to pay a monthly premium to buy into the service?

Many folks who have health-insurance rarely use it for more than yearly check-ups.

So isn't there a good chance that such an expansion of Medicare might make it more solvent?
 
Its actually a great idea. However, the for-profit healthcare and insurance corporations and their Republican supporters will never go for it because they stand to lose billions in profit and support.
 
disneydude said:
Its actually a great idea. However, the for-profit healthcare and insurance corporations and their Republican supporters will never go for it because they stand to lose billions in profit and support.
Click to expand...

that's why we should hopefully someday have the option of buying into Medicare.
 
Medicare only gets away with what it does because it shifts massive costs to private pay insurance.

And it's insolvent.
 
Thunder said:
What would be the problem with expanding Medicare to allow folks under 65 to pay a monthly premium to buy into the service?

Many folks who have health-insurance rarely use it for more than yearly check-ups.

So isn't there a good chance that such an expansion of Medicare might make it more solvent?
Click to expand...

I am currently covered by Medicare, but I do not use it. I use a private insurance policy.
 
Thunder said:
please explain. what is not covered by Medicare?
Click to expand...

I don't believe Reg said anything about what is or is not covered by Medicare. What he said was that costs are shifted to private pay insurance due to artificially low prices that can be charged by providers for Medicare.
 
Doctors who take Medicare patients (fewer and fewer still do) must take private pay patients to make a living.
 
LesGovt said:
I don't believe Reg said anything about what is or is not covered by Medicare. What he said was that costs are shifted to private pay insurance due to artificially low prices that can be charged by providers for Medicare.
Click to expand...

oh. got it.
 
Thunder, I thought you were for government health care?
 
Everyone likes free candy.
 
Oh come on does anybody really think it's free?
 
Medicare is insolvent, and only survives because providers can offset the reimbursement rates with private practice.

And, generally only those over 65 are eligible, which means they have paid into it all their lives.

Doesn't work if you enter the work force tomorrow and immidiately apply for Medicare.
 
Reg said:
Medicare is insolvent, and only survives because providers can offset the reimbursement rates with private practice.

And, generally only those over 65 are eligible, which means they have paid into it all their lives.

Doesn't work if you enter the work force tomorrow and immidiately apply for Medicare.
Click to expand...

what if folks are paying $200 a month to Medicare? that would certainly make it less insolvent than it is today.
 
Not if you throw millions of people into the pool who have not been paying into it for 40 or so years of their working lives.
 
Reg said:
Not if you throw millions of people into the pool who have not been paying into it for 40 or so years of their working lives.
Click to expand...

adding tens of millions of people into Medicare, while charging $200 a month per person, knowing that many of them will NOT get sick, should make Medicare more solvent.
 
No, Medicare only works when you pay into it for 40 years, even then, it goes broke.

Pulling the figure of $200/month out of thin air doesn't work just because you want it to.

Before Obama outlawed them, you could buy a high dedictible individual policy for far less than that.
 
Medicare would need to be restructured if you were to open it up to people under 65. As Reg has pointed out the program only works because it offsets reimbursement. Even still less Physcicians are providing services to Medicare. Bu why would you actually want to pay into Medicaers? Wouldn't it be better off as a basic service with cost controls and then you are free to go and seek some sort of private insurance ala single payer/hybrid system?
 
Thunder said:
What would be the problem with expanding Medicare to allow folks under 65 to pay a monthly premium to buy into the service?

Many folks who have health-insurance rarely use it for more than yearly check-ups.

So isn't there a good chance that such an expansion of Medicare might make it more solvent?
Click to expand...

'Tis a great idea, and the best and most efficient means of providing Universal Healthcare and healthcare reform (in terms of getting a handle on escalating costs) at the same time. Unfortunately, there are far too many gullible middle-class Americans who are willing to believe that this is actually a bad idea because those who profit immensely off the status quo (and their cronies in mass media and Congress) say it is. They should be marching on Washington demanding Medicare for all, but they're too busy watching situation comedies on television.


The sheep get sheared because they insist on being sheep.
 
Get an actuary to crunch the numbers on $200/month and get back to us on it, mkay?

Health care costs aren't "fair" merely because they are what you wish to pay for them.
 
To have Medicare for everyone, you would have to significantly increase payroll taxes. That said, younger Medicare recipients would require far less care than seniors, and thus would be far cheaper to cover under Medicare. Just the same, the program would be much more expensive than it is today, thus taxes would have to increase substantially to pay for it. I would imagine that proponents of Medicare for all would argue that those tax increases would be offset by the fact that you would not be shelling out hundreds of dollars a month for private sector medical insurance premiums.
 
Thunder said:
what if folks are paying $200 a month to Medicare? that would certainly make it less insolvent than it is today.
Click to expand...

If Medicare is the only game in town, the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies can only charge what we are willing to pay them. That's the beauty of "Medicare for All."
 
Oh, government had its head up its ass scoring the cost of Medicare, but it will get this on right this time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom