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.
The problem with Medicare for all as a stand alone policy is that Medicare only pays 80% of covered outpatient expenses. Most seniors on Medicare have expensive secondary policies. If they are income eligible they may qualify for Medicaid. If they can't afford a secondary policy and are not income eligible they pay for the balance of their outpatient sevices out of pocket.
Health insurance reform should have cut employers out of the process, except perhaps for the collection of the "premiums"/increased taxes.
I think healthcare coverage should include dental and vision also - at least basic necessary services- Medicaid does.
80% is about the level of coverage for employer based insurance too, so that's not necessarily a bad thing. You can always tweak those numbers, but I think it's the principle. The main thing is that, as you say, employer based coverage is not a good thing.
To me, the biggest surprise is that major corporations have not supported something like Medicare For All, as that would get healthcare off their backs - with insignificant exceptions, that would not be their core competency anyway.
Another surprise (to me) is that small business owners have not supported it either. Don't you think it makes a lot more sense never to have to worry about providing healthcare for your employees? Or starting your own business? I wonder how many small businesses never get started for lack of healthcare.
True, my employer based coverage does have an 80/20 split - but - it also has a coinsurance limit, Medicare does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Fingers
80% is about the level of coverage for employer based insurance too, so that's not necessarily a bad thing. You can always tweak those numbers, but I think it's the principle. The main thing is that, as you say, employer based coverage is not a good thing.
To me, the biggest surprise is that major corporations have not supported something like Medicare For All, as that would get healthcare off their backs - with insignificant exceptions, that would not be their core competency anyway.
Another surprise (to me) is that small business owners have not supported it either. Don't you think it makes a lot more sense never to have to worry about providing healthcare for your employees? Or starting your own business? I wonder how many small businesses never get started for lack of healthcare.
I live in Canada, No chasing bad debts, no private insurance forms to fill in, and no fear of not being paid.
As a result, our costs are lower than in the USA, and we get better service, as all our hospitals are owned by the public, not private, for profit corporations.
Taking the profit motive out of health care is the best thing we ever did, back in 1960.
Here's what I'd like to know, not only from the Canadians, but from Europeans as well.
Since the doctors have no fear of not getting paid, do they actually provide a service? I mean, besides annual check-ups. If you come to them with a complaint of a chronic nature, do they take it seriously? In the US, most doctors brush it aside and tell you you're fine, without offering any testing. They just don't want to deal with it. And I just found out from my niece, who's living in Germany, that because the doctors there are paid by the state, they do the same, there. Swedes have told me the same about their system; even working-class Swedes pay out-of-pocket for doctors who work outside the state system.
So the question is: what good is free medical care if it doesn't help the patient? Is it only going to get worse in the US, if the US goes to a single-payer system?
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 12-23-2012 at 08:58 PM..
What happens to people who are disqualified because of pre-existing conditions? I mean, presumably they're the ones who need health care the most so there must be some way for them to get coverage?
As a result of legislation passed during Obama's first term, there are now high-risk insurance pools in every state, that don't turn people away. Low-income people can apply for a generous subsidy.
As a result of legislation passed during Obama's first term, there are now high-risk insurance pools in every state, that don't turn people away. Low-income people can apply for a generous subsidy.
I've been a member of my state health insurance pool for a year, now. They were created in 2011.
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.
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.
