U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-29-2019, 01:18 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
12,436 posts, read 7,920,566 times
Reputation: 18202

Advertisements

I know it is a political football, but no one seems to have any idea what it would look like and how it would affect the medical industry.
Do you think it would destroy the industry and what would that look like to someone who needs attention?
Or do you think it would merely change things but not enough to make much difference?
Or do you think it would work better?......
Really. We know who supports it and who doesn't. Lets talk about the result, as far as you can see....

 
Old 01-29-2019, 01:34 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
75,149 posts, read 66,863,554 times
Reputation: 72104
Medicare doesn't cover as much as private insurance, so some patients would be out of luck, unless the system were changed, so that people who have been diagnosed with certain conditions that may require more frequent monitoring than the miserly system allows for, could get the services they need.

Also, the system would have to change, so that registration for it isn't in the hands of Social Security. Instead of registering through SS, as is now done for Medicare, everyone should be able to register directly with the gov't health care system, to eliminate the SS middleman, which is a source of screw-ups and denials of access to Medicare, according to what I've heard from people joining Medicare for the first time.

IMO, many of the people who favor a sort of Medicare-for-all system, don't know what Medicare is really like. THey've only heard that it's "free" (it isn't, entirely. Only part of it is free), so they want it. The issue needs to be given much more serious study by everyone, in order to arrive at an intelligent, well-considered decision.
 
Old 01-29-2019, 01:35 PM
 
2,643 posts, read 635,345 times
Reputation: 2165
The analogy that worked best for me was given by John Stossell. If there was such a thing as grocery insurance, people would all be eating steak instead of hamburger.
 
Old 01-29-2019, 01:44 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
75,149 posts, read 66,863,554 times
Reputation: 72104
Oh, and btw, if the US went to "Medicare for all", how would it be paid for? Taxes would have to go up, to pay for it, of course. Which is fair enough; hopefully (in theory), the economy of scale would make the individual tax burden come out to less than the exorbitant amounts people are paying monthly for their private insurance. But I wouldn't count on it. This is something the people advocating for "free stuff" haven't thought through, AFAIK. Is everyone willing to have their taxes go up by, say, around $700 MONTHLY? Everyone OK with paying about $8500/year more in taxes, no special deductions?

Don't all rush at once to respond. I can wait a bit, for it to sink in. Surprise, surprise; "free stuff" isn't free.

Specialist doctors would also have to get used to not being able to get the newest equipment with all the bells and whistles. Gov't medical systems like in Japan, Sweden, and yes, our old pal, Canada, either don't upgrade their equipment often, or participate in an international market of used equipment or special-design equipment that is more basic, without all the latest bells and whistles, as a way of economizing. Waiting times for CT scans and so on would be longer. Orthopedists and other specialists would no longer have their own x-ray machines in their office (yes, some do have that); the patient would have to go to an x-ray lab in the hospital or local specialized clinic for a scan or x-ray, and that might not be available on demand; there would be a wait, perhaps for days, or a couple of weeks.

Be careful what you wish for, people.
 
Old 01-29-2019, 02:08 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
27,577 posts, read 59,642,016 times
Reputation: 30618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
but no one seems to have any idea what it would look like ...
Mangled and broken by the changes and amendments in order to get through the process.
Rather like what happened with the ACA


Quote:
...and how it would affect the medical industry.
That's a LOT easier. It would put most of them out of business.
It would have to in order to be what the title says.
As to that... the British National Health Service is probably closest.
 
Old 01-29-2019, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Florida -
8,565 posts, read 10,367,054 times
Reputation: 16052
"Free" Medicare/Healthcare for all ... would look like another campaign promise quickly forgotten because it was only intended to garner votes; yet, had no realistic plan or method to pay for it.

Those who periodically make such empty promises depend on the short-memory of voters ... who never really expect politicians to tell the truth. That's why so many are befuddled by Trump who has actually kept his campaign promises!
 
Old 01-29-2019, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,789 posts, read 2,668,366 times
Reputation: 8480
When fewer young people elect to become doctors, you get a shortage, then the line to get treatment gets many times longer.

Some years ago I went to an Ophthalmologist for eye surgery. He said "lets do it Thursday".
Toots, our Canadian snowbird neighbor had gone to her doctor in Ontario and he said "I will put you on the list, your turn will come up in about a year".
 
Old 01-29-2019, 07:22 PM
 
10,178 posts, read 14,609,851 times
Reputation: 11267
As a Certified Prosthetist/Orthotist with 25 yrs in the field, I can say 2 things:
1. Medicare went from the best insurance for my type of patients, to the most hard to work with. In about last 8 years.
2. MANY doctors office stopped taking Medicare patients.
 
Old 01-29-2019, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
3,163 posts, read 1,156,180 times
Reputation: 6059
I was a Medicare beneficiary for 30 years, age 50-80. It served my needs very well. My premiums were paid by state Medicaid because me SS income was in qualifying range. My deductible and co-pay were always what I felt were reasonable. Treatments included the usual trivial stuff, plus an angioplasty, a hernia surgery, and a couple of cataracts.
probably typical for a patient my age. A few hi-tech diagnostic scans. As far as I recall, my drugs were all free of any out of pocet cost. I never had any problem arranging timely consultations and treatments. In short, Medicare struck me as affordable and efficient. If I had had to pay medicare premiums, I might have thought otherwise, but my higher income would have cushioned that.
 
Old 01-29-2019, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Forest bathing
1,516 posts, read 826,723 times
Reputation: 3463
So, what about those of us currently using Medicare? We both have paid into it for 45 years. And, now, we pay for both Medicare ($135/month) plus a supplement. Will those who advocate for Medicare for all putting it under the same plan? If it is free or close to free, who is going to pay?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top