Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by RodB, Feb 14, 2020.
The majority of costs are for end of life care. Where do the think the savings will come from?
This might be a good place to compare government insurance to private. As RodB says above, we pay for medicare part B (medical services without hospitalization) by having $95 per month dedulcted from the social security. Part A (hospitalization) is what is commonly called catastrophic insurance. It has no monthy payment but does have deductible of up to $1500 per hospitalization.
Here is the fun part. Private insurance companies provide many kinds of "gap" insurance ranging from upwards of $100 per month to cover everything not covered by part B to the newer Advantage plans. I have an advantage plan. It covers everything like supplement plans do but doesn't cost anything in my case. How can that be? Well, it does have financial limits unlike supplement plans and you do have to pay for part D (drug coverage.). The real reason it can be is that the Social Security Administration turns over that $95 per month that is deducted from social security to the insurance company. That means the private insurance company can handle what the government covered plus the part it didn't cover for the same money. My agent tells me Advantage plans are very profitable for the insurance company. People who think single payer health insurance will be cheaper are plain dead wrong. It is the government losing money on all of Medicare. Government is the most expensive place to do anything. After all it spends your money, not theirs.
The majority of the costs are for part A which covers hospitalization. The seniors pay for the rest in effect.
End of life care is exactly where the gov will implement rationing. Ezekiel Emanual, Rham's brother, and the guy put in charge of healthcare resource allocation by Obama will tell you as much. His "Complete Lives System" is what we will have.
We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.
He probably thinks he will never get old.
He won't get rationed.
The rules are for us not them
I'm not certain where you're going with this. In general, there already exists assistance for people with severe chronic illnesses, such as ESRD. There are special needs plans available for these people and in addition to qualifying based on your condition, there is also financial assistance available.
So I'm not certain what it is your proposing here.
Well it is puzzling that Bernie and his fellow travelers want private insurance banned, including the Advantage and supplemental plans that make Medicare tolerable. I assume it's purely ideological and they don't care about how it impacts the patient. No Western country has a plan like Bernie is proposing, so it just doesn't make sense.
I'm quite familiar with supplemental plans and don't understand why you want to provide the services of a supplemental insurance product flyer. The real point is no matter what kind of supplemental cheerleader you are, they would be banned under Bernie's plan. So if you like your plan then guess what? You don't get to keep your plan.
Why would Medicare "for the restofus" need to be heavily subsidized? I've been hearing since 2009 that a public option would be dirt cheap because there would not be any evil profits? Why would it ever need to be subsidized?
Health care will cost more regardless of the way it is funded. A for profit system will always cost more then a regulated national system that controls costs. If Finland is having troubles paying for it, it is likely due to monetary issues with the Finnish central bank. We certainly are not Finland and have incredible monetary assets and tools to pay for anything the people want government to provide. We are doing it as we speak. Now if the nation believes that health care for all is more important then warfare for some, we can reorder our priorities. Perhaps you think spending on the military is more important then saving the life of that child dying because they do not have access to health care. That is your choice. It is not mine.
Because most Americans are barely making it. Adding a health care option is not going to cover them all. I agree, a public option will help but it won't cover everyone. Goals. What are our goals? My suggestion is fully covered universal primary coverage for every single American. Not sure what your goals are, that would be a good place to start a conversation.
We are never going to cut healthcare costs as long as we, as a nation, continue to be gluttonous fat pigs.
But you don't want anyone to pay any premiums or costs?
OK, just wanted to check to see if you really thought Medicare would be cheaper than a private plan and it's clear you don't.
And I have asked you for a citation and you have not provided one.
You know Mike, this isn't the first time we've gone round and round on a topic. You just can't admit that you're wrong. I get it, but at the very least have some dignity and learn to know when to stop shoving your foot deeper down your throat.
Well, there WILL be edges to ANY plan - that has always been and will always be the case. And, there will be people who want to cover more than that with private insurance.
For example, lost wages is important and not strictly healthcare. And, there are insurance companies that will cover that.
Agan, healthcare will be an issue determined by congress. The president has influence, but he/she doesn't own congress.
In the end, Sanders and Warren have shown that they understand healthcare issues - and, I think that's the real point.
Scroll up, I provided a link to a NYT story.
This is not the first time you ignored provided evidence so you could claim no evidence.
Luckily, I forgive you.
That's like saying Stalin understood the economy of the Kulaks.
Woolley asked what your healthcare goals are.
I think that's a question you should answer, as it's hard to discuss this topic without that in mind.
They think the single payer will cover everything, 100%.
And I read your link and it does not mention one iota about supplements.
Well the best way to control cost is competition and market forces with individual choice as those Scandinavian countries are finding out. And no a for profit will not always cost more because government never controls cost. The Constitution sets spending priority and at the top of the list is national security and defense else we all die or come under the likes of a China or new Soviet Union. And no we don't have children dying for lack of healthcare unless the parents are neglecting them and we don't have to put everyone on a single government health care system to care for those children.
If you haven’t put the two together the increasing cost of health insurance (especially pre ACA) is a large factor in the lack of wage growth. The annual increase in compensation is falling predominately on the benefits side of the ledger.
The two should not be coupled.
You may want to switch insurance agents.
First off, for 2020, the Part B premium is $144.60 a month that is deducted from your SSI check, unless of course you also qualify for assistance through your state's medicaid plan.
And what financial caps are you referring to? Are you confused about the Part D coverage gap, aka the Doughnut Hole? This year you're actually getting more assistance during that phase of your pdp drug coverage than in years past, but Congress still needs to work on that.
What the insurance companies receive for every MAPD member they enroll is far more than that Part B premium. The government pays in some areas well over $1,000 a head for each member.
Single payer would be cheaper in the long run because it will create transparency in pricing. Right now there is no transparency in our healthcare system.
He's insane, if that's what he's thinking. Not even Canada is that bad.
Separate names with a comma.