Medicare for all -- why not try out in one state or region first? (companies, economy)

[TwoByFour]

Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville

"We have to pay for it?" said a young college student when a reporter told him that Medicare for All would not be "free"...

M4A is free at the point of delivery. So the young college student would not be charged when he/she walks into a clinic and would not receive a bill afterward.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

No country has ever had a regional universal health care system while the rest of the country has a dog-eat-dog system.

There's a reason for that. Its either got to be national or nothing. Just like Medicare isnt a California-only system. Its federal. By law.

States with no income tax have other taxes or fees instead.

Actually Canada's system is divided up between the providences

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Not among public employees. And their unions negotiate cadillac health care plans for them. They don't want M4A, they want to keep those cadillac plans, and will stay home on election day if the Dems nominate an M4A candidate. Remember Obama had to exempt union members from the cadillac health insurance tax to get Obamacare to pass? Union members wouldn't accept having to pay the tax.

Well, Trump intends to do away with public employee unions as he drains the swamp.


That's only a small minority of the American workforce, however, and won't stop the train.

[TwoByFour]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I have no problem with whoever wants Medicare buying in. Just pay 40 years worth of Medicare tax upfront.

You are subsidizing Medicare now. It is not entirely self-funded, it depends on money from the Federal budget. So if you are subsidizing healthcare for us old people, what's wrong with subsidizing healthcare for the rest of the population?

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Depends on the coverage. Many are more than that.

If they are otherwise bringing in significantly bigger pension bucks than average, then the price is higher.

Prescriptions. They have to buy a supplemental policy for that. Copays and what Medicare denies. They have to buy a supplemental policy for that. Etc., etc. Their cost for those policies exceeds what you claim your cost is.

They're being ripped off, then.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by FKD19124

and yet many doctors and hospitals are declining medicare.

How many is “ many”?

Hard- pressed to think of any hospital that does not accept Medicare reimbursement.

The super majority of medical practices accept Medicare reimbursement. Not all are accepting new patients at any point in time.

Cannot imagine a law that would eliminate private insurance or mandate all healthcare providers accept Medicare reimbursement, regardless of party in majority or who sits the oval.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

You are subsidizing Medicare now. It is not entirely self-funded, it depends on money from the Federal budget. So if you are subsidizing healthcare for us old people, what's wrong with subsidizing healthcare for the rest of the population?

would you would be willing to address this "issue" with a step program (reforming medicare in steps) OR through a UBI??


why not do the Crawl, walk, run model...instead of jump in feet first model?????


with the crawl, walk, run model you can analyze to cost and ways to address it...with the jump in feet first model, you could crash the economy








under M4A/singlepayer/UHC the employer contribution goes away...laying those costs squarely on the minority of taxpayers

while I don't care for HC being employer sponsored (ties people to a job)..I certainly don't want to see the 80 million taxpayers get soaked with a 50K bill



If people and politicians "think" the M4A will do wonders, cut costs, and have unicorns dancing in the streets...then why not do it in steps

there is no guarantee M4A could lower any costs or overhead


it will cost an additional 4.1 trillion yearly (according to the CBO)..even Bernie said an ADDITIONAL 4.1 trillion to our budget...and increasing yearly with inflation


with all the denial of service that medicare has...with the staggering cost to the taxpayer


why not take it in steps

why go for mount Everest, when you can do the Rockies first




what we could do is... revise the current medicare and SS systems...yes we could do that:


How???:


1. how about (assuming passing this idea into law in 2020) lower the age for medicare to 60 starting 2020...…....(as most who want to retire don't because medicare is stuck at 65) adjust the cost factor (payroll tax) by 1% (1% is not going to hurt many peoples take home)...revise the formulary so there are less denials of service (too include knee and spinal disc replacements that currently medicare denies because the person is "too old")).... then analyze the cost before next step of lowering to 55 in ten years..then also increase the payroll tax from the new 2% to 2.5% or 3%...(based on the analysis of cost). revise the medicare benefit chart so doctors get their fair share, and so patients get less denial of care




take SS raise the FULL retirement age to 72, (prorated as) those entering the workforce (turning 18) in 2020 FRA is 68..those entering the workforce in 2026 is 69...entering 2032 is 70...etc 6 year steps
raise payroll from 6.2% to 7%...lower the reduced age of retirement (currently 62) to match the new eligibility age for medicare






this would fix the problem of people still working at 55/60/64 ONLY because of health ins...they would retire if they could get medicare….this would also get you a better idea of the overall cost to revise it even more in the future




it makes more sense than to abolish "private insurance" and shoot your whole load on a pipe dream, especially with politicians like Warren not even wanting to admit that the middleclass WILL see a big tax increase (at least she now admitted it will cost 5.3 trillion annually)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

Actually Canada's system is divided up between the providences

Correct. Some provinces offer better coverage than others. For example, some provinces have no prescription coverage.

[serger]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No. They charge Medicare patients a concierge (membership) fee to offset Medicare's low reimbursement rates. It's either that or choose to not take Medicare patients. Doctors cannot be forced to accept Medicare patients and/or Medicare reimbursement rates.

No. All patients are charged membership fee. Also, either private insurance or Medicare do not reimburse this fee.

As I said the acceptance rates of Medicare and private insurance are very similar.

They are not forced. They just accept it. The opposite would be plain stupid considering that on average a a person above 65 consumes x3 more HC than a working age adult, and x 5 more than kids.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

How many is “ many”?

Hard- pressed to think of any hospital that does not accept Medicare reimbursement.

The super majority of medical practices accept Medicare reimbursement. Not all are accepting new patients at any point in time.

Cannot imagine a law that would eliminate private insurance or mandate all healthcare providers accept Medicare reimbursement, regardless of party in majority or who sits the oval.

Which is part of the reason that hospital care is so expensive! Medicare and Medicaid to not cover the costs of the treatments provided. Care to guess just who has to make up the difference?