The Costs of Medicare for All Are Rising Already

So your statement is not accurate. You should re-evaluate your position.

 

Nearly 60, 220#, and 2 miles under 14 minutes. I’m seriously impressed. Your right, you shouldn’t be subsidizing laziness and stupidity in others.

 

MIne wouldn't but they fall drastically for the overwhelming majority if you don't have to carry some one else's burden.

 

yes, I would like to see some incentives built in. Say you charge every adult 1,000 a year for the plan. you maintain a healthy lifestyle, say less than a certain body mass index, don't smoke and if you have a predisposition to an illness by genetics take the required medicine to control it you get a portion to all of that 1000 back. You go to a CVS walkin for a cold/rash/etc instead of a doctor - you get credit for that. you get your physical and your age recommended testing and you get credit for that.

 

If we go single payer or whatever I’d second your motion on this idea. Unfortunately I think Seal Team, you, and I are a tiny minority.

 

Thanks, that was an interesting article.

One of the things that bugs me the most about so-called "experts" discussing M4A is that nearly all of them assume that what people already pay into Medicare via payroll taxes will stay the same. They don't seem to consider that Americans who have not reached retirement age could pay a higher monthly amount for their Medicare than retirees pay. It could cost individuals more per month than their current payroll contributions, but that would still be a lot less than what they pay now for health care coverage.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php

I don't favor eliminating private coverage. I think it should be an option. I'm convinced that once people begin to see how much better M4A works, and how much less it costs, there will be a huge migration away from private insurance.

I also think that the way Medicare works, paying 80% of most things medical, should stay the same, allowing private insurers to continue providing supplemental policies.

Going on Medicare was the best thing that ever happened for me, financially speaking. I have two pre-existing conditions and see a bevy of doctors regularly. My annual cost for both Medicare and a great supplement is $3,396. With that supplement, which in my case costs more per month than Medicare itself, I can see any doctor I choose, and I pay zero deductibles and zero co-payments. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, Americans spent $10,000 in on average for healthcare in 2016, and $18,764 in 2017. I should think that most people would love to have it my way, even if it costs them $500 per month.

 

It depends on the company you work for. Before I retired my company gave me a benefit package that I got to choose how I wanted the money spent. They also contributed slightly more for every year that I stood with the company. I think the last year I was there it was about 16K. There were 5 or six health insurance plans ranging from about 5K to 12K for my family size if I chose the 5k plan the 7 grand delta was added to my pay or I could use it for life, vision. dental, Aflac whatever. What ever I spent over the 16k was 100% paid by me, or I could sell them back vacation for time over two weeks.

 

I don't know anyone who believes that the 4 percent that they contribute to medicare is all they are going to pay for health insurance. If they are any, they also probably believe that the country could make everyone live like a millionaire by just giving everyone a million dollars.

 

Vendors do not change one persons price based on what other people pay.... nor do they set price based upon a set expected income .... so that they will charge me less if they can charge other people more

 

It has little or nothing to do with what we were talking about. The fact remains that most of the civilized world provides far better healthcare coverage than we do for far less cost. That should be unacceptable to all of us.

 

So?

 

Rates are rates per person

Other nations have the same stats, How can they provide single payer coverage and we can't?

 

So you destroy an employer based system that works so you can distribute that funding on a broad scale and be totally shocked that it doesn't provide the same level of care.

 

The reason for this is that Medicare for All plans we have seen suck. Here is how I would fix it:

Lets fix Medicare by getting rid of all the parts A, B, C, D and cut out as much paperwork as possible and structure it more like an insurance plan like the public option and call it Public Insurance. Make a Bronze, Silver, and Gold version of Public Insurance. Each of these will have a coverage percent with Gold being better than Bronze. Each plan will also have a yearly premium, and people will get a taxpayer-subsided amount that will be paid for them. Most people will have enough to completely cover the premiums for the Bronze plan, the elderly will have enough for Silver, and veterans will have enough for Gold. Legal immigrants will have a much lower amount that is taxpayer covered.

People can use part of that taxpayer subsidized amount to pay for a private insurance replacement for public insurance. If they don't replace their public insurance, they can still get private insurance for anything public insurance doesn't cover. We can now eliminate the distinction between Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits and unit them under Public Insurance.

The Bronze plan will be cost-effective and will prefer cheaper treatments to expensive ones, with Gold and Silver being less cost effective. People can also take health tests that checks their weight and blood pressure for an increase in the percent covered in their plan. These plans will also cover drugs and care in cheap countries. Preventative care will have a much higher coverage percent than advanced non-preventative care. After a certain amount spent out of pocket, the coverage percent will be increased so very sick people aren't burdened with massive debts.

We already have public hospitals but they aren't cost effective like in other developed developed nations. Singapore is a great model for cost effective quality public hospitals that we can follow. Private hospitals will be covered by public insurance but at a lower percent than public hospitals.

Much of this will be paid for by taxes on junk food so obese people pay their share of their higher healthcare costs. We can also use higher taxes on the wealthy and carbon taxes to pay for this as well.

We can remove most of the Obamacare and other regulations on private insurance since most people won't depend on it anymore. We will greatly simply regulations on private hospitals and clinics since we have public ones. We will also remove most tax deductions and subsidies for drug companies, private insurance, hospitals, and other parts of private healthcare to help pay for public healthcare.

 

Nonsense if You know that you are going to have to take a forty percent hair cut in one sector you have two choices. You can drop that sector or you can make up the forty percent in some other sector.

 

No I think it will provide a better level of care for more Americans, and position american business to do better in competition with European and asian companies that do not have to bear the costs of their employees healthcare.

I feel the same way about SS, your retirement is social cost not a business cost. we are asking our businesses to compete with foreign companies and have them pay 1/2 the cost of our "pension" No wonder american business goes overseas.

Insurance companies don't provide care. providers provide care. insurance companies provide a profit for thier investors.

 

I think you are dreaming. The kicker is "...a better level of care for more Americans", which doesn't say that the level of care will be the same or better than what the people with employer paid had. It's redistribution and if some win others will lose by definition. Those premiums are part of employee compensation, they are not handouts but they will be if you take what they have and give it to people who aren't working in that system. As for SS, I have no doubt that those payments are also figured with the employee's compensation package. That too is not a gift, it's earned by those who work for it.

 

Yes, and many doctors choose not to accept medicare for that reason

 

no they are not handouts but they are government subsidies to the tune of about 40% in that they are deducted expenses that the nation would otherwise receive tax revenues. And again why do you think your doctor is going to give you worse care. Before I retired I switched providers about every other year, I never seen any dif is service even when one company reimbursed at a higher or lesser rate than another company.

I am not saying that I did not work for a combination of wage and benefits. They are not a gift unless you work for the government and you only pay 20% while most other people are paying closer to 30% for thier package. But you have to remember that people who purchase the goods or services that your company provides pays for that. Now whether that cost is paid by a tax on the consumer or built into the overhead of the service/goods does not matter to the consumer. A dollar is a dollar. I rather cut out a profit making machine that siphons out money between the patient and the provider.

Everytime I see a 1mill commercial for my advantage account during a football game I get pissed.

 

Let's simplify. For the sake of argument, take the current healthcare system. Subtract Insurance Corporate profits. Where does the increase come from?

 

The care the doctor will give will be the same, what will be allowed or affordable will change and alter healthcare patterns. Low cost Obamacare is nearly worthless.

What is paid into SS is a tax and SS payouts are taxed as well. Those payouts are not free, we pay into it our entire working lives, it's an insurance plan that only pays an annuity, no lump sums.

 

So we can NEVER rely on government bureaucrats to give us the truth, especially when it comes to proposals to expand government’s control over our lives.

They will underestimate the costs just to get a program passed in Congress. Then the program will never be cut once the underestimation is discovered. They lie every time.

 

There is no such thing as low cost obama care- Obama care was just an exercise in increasing industry profits. Obama care started off as something pretty decent but by the time the law was passed and the healthcare industry got done with the bribes ( better known as election contributions) most everything everything that was good about the original proposal was wiped out.

 

My point wasn't about what most people believe, it's about experts like the one you quoted who don't seem to take into account that people will pay more if they opt for Medicare. They seem to base their calculations and predictions on what people pay now through the payroll tax. They also mostly don't account for other methods of revenue, such as very small tax rate increases for the rich, which is how Warren plans to pay for it.

There is also the fact, which I believe is important, that an administrative or governing agency already exists, and has for long enough to have seasoned veterans of the system to help smoothe the transition. The federal government won't need a whole new agency, just a lot of new hires. Win-win.

 

There was never anything decent about Obamacare. It was always about getting the providers paid. If it had actually been about lowering costs it would have addressed the costs.