Medicare hospital fund reserves likely to be exhausted in 2026: U.S. report

[mrdeltoid]

By the way, doesn't the "Medicare for all" seem a little unrealistic, I mean we can't even support what we have. Where would the money come from?

 

[jimbo]

You do know private insurance companies won't provide insurance to the elderly at a reasonoable price? So no, there is no way the private sector would even touch elderly health insurance much less do it better than Medicare.

Failing to fully fund Medicare is a choice Congress has made. It has nothing to do with a failure of Medicare. The fact is the citizens of this country love Medicare. It is literally a life saver and a financial boon to millions of retirees who paid into the system to fund it.

"Medicare for All" is funded by premiums paid by all US taxpayers just like private health insurance except the premiums are based on income.

Then it's not Medicare at all. It's redistribution of wealth. I pay mine. i pay yours.

 

[Deuce]

"It costs too much" is the dumbest argument against medicare for all when we already have the most expensive healthcare system possible.

"I currently pay $2000 per month mortgage on this house, and these damn liberals want a house that costs $1500/month! How are we gonna PAY for that!?"

 

[Obscurity]

And a pisspoor attempt at that. Just what do you think "profiteer(ing) off of happenstance and misfortune" means in real life? Sounds like a DNC talking point.

The prohibition of cannabis is the perfect example of a big health care industry profiteering off the misery of the public. You can take a frankendrug which may cause cancer to prevent IBS pain, or a little cannabis.

Which one is illegal, and why?

So no, it's not a talking point. It's a reality. I suffer from IBS. Cannabis does the trick. Why is the cancer causing Frankendrug legal, but cannabis is not?

 

[manofknowledge]

Then it's not Medicare at all. It's redistribution of wealth. I pay mine. i pay yours.

No it's insurance. You pay an insurance premium and when needed, go get the care you need. The current Medicare is based on income and it works well.

 

[manofknowledge]

By the way, doesn't the "Medicare for all" seem a little unrealistic, I mean we can't even support what we have. Where would the money come from?

It comes from the $3 trillion dollars we spend on health care every year already.

 

[smallvoice]

The prohibition of cannabis is the perfect example of a big health care industry profiteering off the misery of the public. You can take a frankendrug which may cause cancer to prevent IBS pain, or a little cannabis.

Which one is illegal, and why?

So no, it's not a talking point. It's a reality. I suffer from IBS. Cannabis does the trick. Why is the cancer causing Frankendrug legal, but cannabis is not?

Sounds like your bitch is with the congress critters. They are the ones who make cannabis legal or illegal. The drug company is following the law. What is Frankendrug?

 

[Born Free]

Healthcare would not be government run. Single payer/Medicare for All would replace insurance companies with a government payment system which will have no impact on you at point of service.

Your avoiding my question, who would be responsible for running the "single payer/Medicare for all"

Who runs Medicare now, yep the government. So if government is not involved in running Medicare who is?

 

[mrdeltoid]

It comes from the $3 trillion dollars we spend on health care every year already.

If "we all" spend it already, why change anything?

 

[manofknowledge]

If "we all" spend it already, why change anything?

One good reason is we spend about $5000 per capita more for health care than other industrialized countries that have health care for all systems yet roughly 20% of our population has no access to care.

 

[sangha]

Clinton already got me. I have a FD pension that is self supporting, costing the feds nothing. I knew it wasn't a huge amount to live on, so I worked 2 jobs for years to build up enough quarters to qualify for SS, in addition to my years in the marines. I was unaware that during the 90s, Slick Willie signed the "Windfall Elimination Provision". My quarterly statement said I qualified for $626/mo at 62 years old. I worked part time for almost 20 years in addition to my FD job. And when I retired, I worked full time at Home Depot for 8 years, which qualified me for the $626/mo. Well to my chagrin, My first SS check arrived and it was all of $272/mo, BEFORE taxes. So, now I'm 63, I do OK, but I always thought that the penalty for not waiting till 67 or whatever age is the max, was getting 626 instead of the $900 or whatever the max amount is. I had no idea this bill was signed into law. I didn't even know it existed.:shock: Oh well, live and learn.:doh

If your SS check was reduced by the WEP it was because you worked at a job that provided you with a pension but did not contribute to SS.

Why should you receive a SS subsidy when others contributed for their entire working life?

 

[Deuce]

Your avoiding my question, who would be responsible for running the "single payer/Medicare for all"

Who runs Medicare now, yep the government. So if government is not involved in running Medicare who is?

A current medicare patient visits a private hospital, and sees a private-practice doctor today. Is this healthcare "government-run?"

 

[Deuce]

If "we all" spend it already, why change anything?

Because 28 million ****ing people aren't covered. Because American citizens are literally dying because they can't afford medication. That's why the **** you change it.

 

[Obscurity]

Sounds like your bitch is with the congress critters. They are the ones who make cannabis legal or illegal. The drug company is following the law. What is Frankendrug?

What a bunch of deflectionary nonsense. you know as well as I do big pharma pays a whole lot to keep cannabis illegal.

 

[Obscurity]

Your avoiding my question, who would be responsible for running the "single payer/Medicare for all"

Who runs Medicare now, yep the government. So if government is not involved in running Medicare who is?

The payment system would be run by government. Not healthcare.

 

[smallvoice]

What a bunch of deflectionary nonsense. you know as well as I do big pharma pays a whole lot to keep cannabis illegal.

No, yours is a bunch of ignorant nonsense. Congress make cannabis legal or illegal.

 

[Obscurity]

No, yours is a bunch of ignorant nonsense. Congress make cannabis legal or illegal.

Not when they are beholden to pharma companies that have massive pockets. So please, stop ignoring a real issue that stops congress from passing laws.

And, btw, that same sort of backdoor dealing is the sort of stuff your POTUS is so fond of.

 

[Born Free]

A current medicare patient visits a private hospital, and sees a private-practice doctor today. Is this healthcare "government-run?"

Answer my question, you don't answer a question with a question.

 

[Born Free]

The payment system would be run by government. Not healthcare.

So you say the government's only involvement is paying bills. Who is the hell is going to run Medicare for All. You have no answer.

 

[Deuce]

Answer my question, you don't answer a question with a question.

I asked the question because I need clarification on what you perceive "government run healthcare" to actually mean.

Medicare For All is best described as government running health insurance, not health care. Private doctors will still be around, private hospitals will still be around. Same as they are now, their billing department just gets a lot smaller.

So yes, the government will run Medicare For All, same as they run Medicare today. Is that clear enough?

 

[Deuce]

So you say the government's only involvement is paying bills. Who is the hell is going to run Medicare for All. You have no answer.

He just said the payment system would be run by the government. Medicare for All is the payment system. How is this not clear?

 

[smallvoice]

Not when they are beholden to pharma companies that have massive pockets. So please, stop ignoring a real issue that stops congress from passing laws.

And, btw, that same sort of backdoor dealing is the sort of stuff your POTUS is so fond of.

Once again I say your problem is with the congress critters, not the companies. If they didn't want to line their pockets, they'd vote the way you want.

Take this to the CT forum.

 

[Born Free]

I asked the question because I need clarification on what you perceive "government run healthcare" to actually mean.

Medicare For All is best described as government running health insurance, not health care. Private doctors will still be around, private hospitals will still be around. Same as they are now, their billing department just gets a lot smaller.

Medicare does get involved in the health care of our citizens, it decides what it will pay for all procedures, from Dr. visits to death and everything in between. They decide what is covered or not. And they get very involved in the entire system as Medicare is providing this service with taxpayer dollars. With a Medicare for all program they have to decide what is reasonable compensation for Dr., hospitals etc. If they low ball the payments there will be no good doctors left or hospitals. Their not going to school for half their life to practice medicine and not get paid for all those years of education. Right now the payments from Medicare is low balled, as they use the private insurance to make up the difference.

So yes, the government will run Medicare For All, same as they run Medicare today. Is that clear enough?

You could have said that when I asked the question the first time. But thanks for the clarification.

 

[mrdeltoid]

If your SS check was reduced by the WEP it was because you worked at a job that provided you with a pension but did not contribute to SS.

Why should you receive a SS subsidy when others contributed for their entire working life?

I contributed my entire working life. One job I paid the SS tax. The other I contributed to a private pension plan. The jobs I paid SS was ten years before the FD. The rest was at the same time I paid into my private fund. I didn't want the $1800 that the max pays. I just wanted the share I contributed since I was 16. Nothing more. The quarterly statement said I qualified for $600/mo. I don't think I should be penalized for working 2 jobs my entire life. JMHO

 

[mrdeltoid]

Because 28 million ****ing people aren't covered. Because American citizens are literally dying because they can't afford medication. That's why the **** you change it.

So 60 million people loose the insurance they work so hard for? Maybe everybody that are so keen on spending hard working citizens money can volunteer to pay for it. A lot of us work our whole life and sacrifice a lot creature comforts because we LIKE OUR INSURANCE PLANS.