Medicare for all, with insurance companies still having the option to sell advantage and supplement plans - they would become profitable beyond their wildest dreams. No more Medicaid, and with the exception of active military and their families, no more national healthcare programs. BIA, VA, Tri-Care, etc. will get paid through Medicare. This will clear out a huge cobweb of federal bureaucracy. Finally, the BIA clinics and VA hospitals would remain open, and anyone could apply to receive treatment there, much like how the burn unit at the San Antonio VA works.
When you have something that is broken and you refuse to fix it until you can guarantee that the replacement will be perfect, you end up getting nothing as perfection can never happen for everyone. Historically,anything the government touches in any country just gets worse so no, I am not interested in promoting medicare for all.
Canada keeps being mentioned in this thread so maybe a good starting point would be for our government to find a way to make our $600 of insulin at US list prices, which is available in Canada over the counter at USD 58 available in the US for the same $58. When the US government can demonstrate that they can start to match one piece of the broken system to become competitive with other countries that have more, better, less expensive options than the US, then we give the US government a challenge to improve another aspect of health care.
If the Government can keep improving the health care system one baby step at a time, eventually it will be fixed. Bottom line, I think you will find that the US US Government is unable to fix anything. They will make a few baby steps and then falter and stop further improvements. Insulin will go from $600 to $300 and the US Government will tout great victory while it is still available in all other countries for $58.
No thanks
1 Like
No; not for single payer/no private insurance system.
1 Like
In the UK medicaid for all. One of the highest expenditures on medical care by any government.
Some things I donāt care to happen.
Much higher taxes, so no it wonāt save me money as a working American, although I am retired now. My husbands company paid for a huge portion of medical insurance, thatās why he went to work for a company that has a good insurance and pension plan.
They donāt pay for meters or test strips for type 2ās unless youāre on insulin, they claim itās not necessary.
Of type 1ās. Only 10% and they have raised it to 17% will qualify for a CGM and you only qualify if you have poor control. They are proud they raised the limit to 17%. And thatās not even for a Dexcom, thatās for a LIbre. Forget getting a Dexcom. They have to self fund that.
People wait 10 years to get a pump and they can take it away from you if they feel you arenāt using it properly.
Obviously you are not ever going to get the latest tech, they barely will get you any of the ātechā
Normal blood work can take 2 weeks to come back for results. That includes testing things like A1C. They send it off.
And those are the things Iām most familiar with because of my type 1. But I can list a few others too.
When you get your appointment for a UTI, they send a urine sample to see if it has bacteria, Iām not talking a culture, Iām talking that dipstick we can buy at the drugstore just to see if there is bacteria in the urine. Here they do it in office now and even when they didnāt they would prescribe an antibiotic right away. It takes 2 days to get the positive results back, can you imagine living with a urine infection for 2 days???
A years wait to get knee surgery, even when you canāt walk wellā¦
A decision by the government if they should pay for certain things for people, not whether a doctor thinks you should have it.
A shortage of doctors, who wants to go to medical school to get paid less? Sure we have a shortage and some waits, but Iām talking there is only one doctors group to choose from unless you want to drive a distance away. Iām talking your everyday pcp. Plus they see nurses and dieticians, we get that here but not anything close to the extant that is over there.
Iām sure I can remember a few other things if I wanted to think about it longer,
But I definitely do not want medicaid for all. Lets start fixing some of the things wrong over here, weād be better off.
1 Like
Thanks for that, looks like an informative link!
Unfortunately the public (including we who have a lot riding on our āhealth careā options in the US plus all the millennials who never go to the doctor) will not know whatās in the bill until Congress passes the bill (just like the ACA). And politicians have been known to both oversell their crisis-fixing bill of the moment or to flat out lie. There is no way I would support the currently proposed āMedicare for Allā for that reasonā¦until Congress votes itās just a slogan, nothing more. The WA DC crowd has turned it into a red vs blue debate, which is a bad sign. Those red vs blue debates are usually the most dishonest.
Personally I am confused about the role of our state insurance commissioners in regulating our health coverage. Iāve been in touch with mine and their office passes the buck to the legislators. It seems to me that the details that affect access and cost/coverage issues affecting diabetics should be handled there.
1 Like
And if take all them taxes and add them up and then take all our taxes and add them up + paying for policies
IT COMES OUT THE SAME
Even on medicare with an added plan and prescription I have to pay 400 a month
MATH, I HAS IT
1 Like
5 Likes
I believe you have mis-read what @T2Tom said. I had to read it twice but I donāt believe he is saying that not everyone deserves health care but rather the opposite.
I would be shocked for the topic to not spiral out of control.
May as well post whatever you think (on the issue) and not worry about who gets offended.
4 Likes
This actually is my point of view.
With most things, I prefer small iterative changes with continual feedback and course correction.
4 Likes
My husband and I pay 1400 per month for Medicare and private insurance. Itās tough.
I see. Thankyou.
I think we can discuss this topic as long as it doesnāt devolve into political bashing. We all have our political ideology, as long as we do not let our emotion rule we can discuss the merits of this proposal. Remember to not take anything said personally and we should be OK.
3 Likes
I support medicare for all, but likely not in the way most people think. I believe the base coverage in the US should be at least equal to medicare. I believe if a person works over 30 hours at a single job they should be guaranteed medicare coverage.
Now the question is how do we get there? That is the 100 Billion dollar quesiton. The answer is to use our current advantages.
So if you a person works 30+ hours per week, I believe the employer should provide Medicare as base coverage. There are two ways to do this. First the employer could purchase medicare coverage from the federal government for the cost of the plan plus 5% admin fee. Or the employer could purchase in the open market private insurance comparable to medicare. Almost all would purchase the medicare option.
I also believe individuals should be able to purchase medicare coverage for the cost of medicare plus 5%. This woudl make Medicare the minimal coverage of the US. Can employers or individuals then purchase greater coverage? Of course. Purchase supplemental plans, purchase drug plans. Purchase nothing additional all good.
The federal government is the largest purchaser of health insurance in the word and it is getting bigger each day. It is the lowest cost insurance in the country with the lowest expenses. Employers and others will sign up almost immediately. Again it will be the default national minimum health care for US citizens. Paid for in the same way we already pay for health insurance.
Finally the original ACA required all people to have health insurance. This was an important part of the ACA and repealing it was not smart. So fine, remove the requirement (already done) but make every person who refuses to carry insurance to post a $100,000 health insurance bond.
People think the requirement for health insurance was an infringement on personal freedom. I get that. But here is the thing, someone not carrying health insurance is a tax on each of us who do. How is it a tax? When they go to the hospital and cannot pay their bills it raises everyoneās prices.
Find the solution to keep the system from collapsing when a 30 year old does not choose to have health insurance and needs a surgery and I am all for it. Until a solution is available then taxing those who refuse to carry it and cannot afford basic health care is the only rational solution. Everyone is afraid of paying another personās bill? Well removing the the taxing requirement means we all pay for the irresponsible.
2 Likes
Just out of curiosity, why limit it to only US Citizens? I would think the more individuals that pay into the system, the better the system can spread costs and risk. Otherwise, legal US residents from other countries that are not US citizens and of course illegal immigrants will still end up in the hospitals causing your ātaxā when they canāt afford to pay.
2 Likes
I was strongly opposed to the ACA when it was proposed just as I am regarding the Medicare for All proposal.
Again, . . . while I think it is important for everyone to have good medical CARE, I do not think the ACA was a good idea nor do I think Medicare for all is a good idea.
What is wrong with having choices? People can decide what type of financial assistance (health insurance) from a third party they want, be it from their employer if offered, or another avenue. Maybe we should consider KEEPING what is currently available and coming up with some remedy for those that are not able to avail themselves of what is currently an option.
Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. Maybe we can develop an additional option for those that are not served by the current practices. An ADDITIONAL choice for the subset of people that are still out in the cold when it comes to assistance for obtaining health COVERAGE.
Just a thought.
1 Like
Another issue nobody seems to even talk about is the underground economy and it is huge in the US. There is currently an effort for the US to go to a cashless society, in other words pay with your phone and stop using paper currency. As we become cashless it should be much easier to control the huge US sector that deals in cash and avoids paying some income taxes, medicare costs, etc. Other countries that have historically been 100% cash societies are rapidly converting to cashless. I am thinking of India and China in particular.
When you buy something in a retail store in China, you just point your phone at a QR code by the cash register and the transaction then becomes computer to computer. Just a few years back China was just about a 100% cash society. Very few companies and even fewer individuals even had checking accounts or credit cards.
I think they will be avoiding hospitals at least at present.
Those choices involve thousands of people, millions of mailings, thousands of websites that need to be supported - hundreds of thousands of customer care.
All a total and complete waste that drains money from real care
Economies of scale - itās that simple
1 Like