Majority of Americans Support Medicaid for All

Wow! Just what I support. Medicaid for all. It looks like I'm not alone. Medicaid is so easy just walk into the doctors office and you never have a co-pay or pay for anything but maybe $1 for each medication, except for mental illness drugs which are free.

You want to hear about a Medicaid expansion? Well yahoo!

Majority of Americans Support Medicaid for All
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/08/30/Majority-Americans-Support-Medicaid-All

 

I see nothing about methodology, number of respondents, or specific questions asked.

 

I can't find anything on that.

 

Medicaid for all? The only thing that might make sence is Medicare for all. And then only if there was a new regulation called medicare E. Meaning everyone and the premiums would be based in family income or single income. And take into account whether anyone in your family had a preexisting disease and its anticipated by early cost..

 

Really, midicaid?

 

In EVERY country that has a UHC touching it or threatening it is political suicide. No matter how bad the system it is still political suicide

 

Really? Medicaid? most private practice physucians and private hospitals no longer take medicaid. It pays reimbursements less than the cost of treating the patient. If they support medicaid foeball and not medicare for all, which might cause them to pay a premium, then they want something for nothing. If medicaid dailsbto pay providers a fair wage, no one will accept medicaid

 

Are you sure this survey wasn't about completely abolishing Medicaid?

 

Majority of Americans Support Medicaid for All
Personally, I feel Medicare for all would be a better answer to the nation's needs, but Medicaid for all with supplemental insurance available for those who want additional coverage and can afford it, would be an improvement over our current flawed system.

 

Why don't we just set up a system where half of US medical spending is funded by the Federal government?

Obviously, with such purchasing power and little overhead, that would cover the majority of Americans.

Oh wait, that's what we currently have...

 

You can't read or are you being obtuse?

 

Companies would love it, it would reduce the burden on business to provide health insurance.

 

Why don't we make a concerted good-faith effort--across the aisle--to find a working answer to the healthcare dilemma? America is the last of a long line of countries world wide, to adopt a national healthcare system covering all its citizens. Time changes everything, and over time, Americans are coming to regard healthcare access as a right of citizenship. To you who argue we can't afford it, I retort that if we can afford to support the American Military Industrial Complex in its never-ending pursuit for more efficient ways to kill people around the world, to the tune of paying more than the next nine countries with the largest militaries on Earth, combined, then why can't we afford national healthcare for our citizens? It's not a shortage of money. It's a matter of values & priorities. It's a matter of making the right choices.

 

We will eventually be forced to do something about healthcare. So we should do it willingly, intelligently, completely (avoid half-baked stop-gap schemes), and now.

Let's not legislate a system that we can see will end up costing more. That would frustrate people and put many against national healthcare. So it needs to be thoroughgoing.

Bernie's plan sounds good but it isn't complete and is likely to end up costing as much or more. What's left out is drug and equipment costs, incentives for preventive care and healthy choices, physician and facility costs, fee-for-service encouraging unnecessary appointments, and expensive technologies and services. Medical centers are currently driven to do what they can to attract patients to boost business, and part of this drive involves expensive technologies and services like MRIs. MRI machines are VERY expensive, and while they do serve to attract patients due to the sense that the facility is very well equipped, they often go unused much of the time, and they are sometimes used unnecessarily in order to charge for services that help amortize the cost of the machines. Costs in this one specific case (as one example of expensive technologies and services) could be reduced by establishing MRI centers where physicians would send patients who need MRIs.

At the Mayo Clinic, physicians are paid salaries rather than fee-for-service. Physician salaries at Mayo Clinic can range from $155,717 - $439,847. It seems to me that a maximum of something around $300,000 would be high enough! But their cost for malpractice insurance needs to be addressed then. I never needed to insure myself for my job performance in a range of occupations. My employers had the coverage. In a national healthcare system the government should manage the insurance issue.

The point of it all is that costs MUST be controlled or healthcare will remain much too expensive. We have to declare that the golden goose of record profits and earnings has died and a sustainable system of compensation and control is required. THEN we can create a national healthcare system that is affordable and high quality.

The problem is that this would require a sudden, swiftly-implemented wholesale change of our system, and Congress likes a gradual, piecemeal approach.

 

Very thoughtful & informative post. Thank you. I agree with your observations--all of them. I'd love to see something done immediately, but as you said, Congress like incremental steps, and those don't always work out as planned. I submit our conversion to metric as an example. Congress wanted to convert gradually over a decade, but states got impatient and distracted, so it got dropped after the first 2-3 years. National healthcare could easily end up the same way. Some say it already has, with Obamacare. Hopefully, we'll get it right & get it together within the next decade.

 

Why are we confusing medicare and Medicaid. ? They aren’t the same programs. He is federally run, one is state run

 

I vote for Medicare for all; a NATIONAL Healthcare program.

 

Medicare is the biggest group plan possible. It works for businesses because they no longer have to provide a healthcare plan which can cost as much as 30% of the total package. With Medicare, it can drop to the same percentage as workers pay on their payroll taxes. They’ll save as much as 20%. There’s your wage increase. Everyone benefits, except the insurance company donors and their lackies, the GOP.

 

Agree that Medicare would be the best choice, Medicare Part E(for everyone). But Part E premiums would be based on the families income. And coverage would be the same as Part B reimbursements.
But your wrong about this: it would benefit insurance companies that cover Medicare. Benefit the insureds but, not sure how it would benefit the GOP.
Medicaid for all would not help everyone, just as it doesn't now. It reimburses far below private and medicare insurance and that is why an increasing number of providers wont accept it.

 

In shear numbers, insurance companies lose 80% of the open below 65 market with Medicare for all. I don’t understand what your point is.Medicare is federal program. Personally, I would like to have Medicare as an option. Let republicans stay in the private market or not have insurance if they so desire. Let them pay out of pocket for emergency services too. Let’s not make that mandatory. They can get a bill or be refused care for an accident If uninsured. Put that $20k bill on their charge card !!! cause really, paying for the uninsured for emergency room care for those gambling with the system is what cost so much. Once you have the public option, you’re covered for everything, but voluntarily.

Have yearly deadlines for enrollment so they can’t play the system. They’ll find by the millions, they can easily go bankrupt not having health insurance if they have an accident.let them be turned away by the emergency room if the come in without insurance. Alfter all, it’s a socialism Govt mandate payed for by tax payers NOW, that insures people won’t be turned away.

Enrolling in Medicare below 65 should be optional but not retroactive and have deadlines. No exception. Play hardball with the poorly informed who want capitalism in health-insurance deciding their fate. These people will literally suffer and die because of their poor choices, just like the elderly did for decades before Medicare.

 

I like it.

 

Ahhhh maybe not.

"So the new Democratic strategy is not to say “single payer” even when they mean it. Mr. Sanders is offering what he calls “Medicare for All” even though his plan ends Medicare for everybody. It’s not a drafting error. USA Today notes that the phrase “Medicare for All” polls well and then adds:

But the surveys also show that support erodes when people hear the arguments that the plan could increase taxes or government control. And nearly half of adults surveyed last October falsely assumed they could keep their current insurance under a single-payer plan.

“The notion that it’s popular is premised upon people knowing almost nothing about it,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “That’s a problem for a very complicated thing that would transform one-fifth of our entire economy.”"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democr...omise-to-end-pre-existing-coverage-1540333230

 

How does Medicare for all, end Medicare ?
Of course it will increase taxes.
The majority of people want medicare for all.

Because the overhead for Medicare is 2% and it’s as high as 18% for private insurance to pay their profits, the taxes would be substantially less then your premiums are now.
1/5 of the economy to insure every man woman and child for a life time of good affordable healthcare ? Even if you’re right, that’s f’n CHEAP.
We want another aircraft carrier instead ?
The solution for doubters is simple....THE PUBLIC OPTION .
then you could choose between your expensive private plan vs enrolling in MEDICARE,

 

Because it would no longer be a defined benefit that you pay into to receive.

And when people find that out their support for it falls dramatically.

USA Today and when people are told the details that support drops dramatically

 

I don’t know what you mean by “defined” benefit.
Ask anyone who is on Medicare ! Being backed by the feds, it is very reliable and NEVER misses payments and is as reliable as social security.

Doctors hate private insurance they have to chase down, and Medicaid acts at the whim of the state govment which is often underfunded and understaff.
It’s the disadvantage of balanced budget amendments at the state level.
You need to educate yourself in statelevel funding.

I guess you didn’t read my post. Do you want to pay $800 extra in payroll taxes per year for health insurance or $2000 in premiums....dah ? It’s much less in every country in the world that has it !

What makes you think states are as consistently reliable ?. Some are atrociously run, especially our state where the people in referendum voted to participate an Medicaid expansion and our governor just held funding back for years, leaving 80k uninsured. The management at the state level is terrible.

Show me the reference link from USA Today !