It will be 20 trillion dollars cheaper than the current system.

more and better care to everyone. How much more will be limited by our national ability and willingness to pay in taxes for healthcare for a few hundred million people we don't know. Even with strictly controlled costs, the miracles and enormous blessings of modern medicine will always be very expensive.

We'll only be able to keep costs at a level we can and will agree to pay for by making everyone who can pay in starting at a very young age and continuing until taxable income ceases.

It'll be worth it, of course every American expecting to be able to live, with luck, until their very elderly bodies just wear out (and maybe significantly past when that is now?) but those who will have to pay shouldn't ever expect the costs to drop below wince and complain level.

The current system

https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/&ved=2ahUKEwjCvOml4_zcAhUMI3wKHbFuCZ4QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2zsm_aPDHmERoaZaqSqXlh


Although, like you said when it comes to accomdating peoples' basic needs, that shouldnt matter. It is all worth it regardless of cost.

including Social Security, unemployment insurance, and of course all national healthcare systems. Everyone should really, really question the Kochs' motive in producing a study that would be expected to undercut support for national healthcare system in place. They've famously been having a great deal of unexpected difficulty destroying Obamacare because of its popularity with the voters and its integration with various national, state and commercial systems. They're currently working on destroying the VA, America's most successful, by far least expensive, socialized medical system.

They're not limited to big federal programs, though. They want to dismantle virtually all regulation on business. They have real problems with municipalities running mass transit systems, even busses, and have made it their business to stop projects in a number of cities. They didn't like another city's plan for a zoo. They're against mandatory taxation to pay for not just programs like our big social safety net, but even for the public schools systems across our nation. That's right: no mandatory public education, no mandatory taxes to pay for it.

The Kochs and their alliance have been working to get to this point for over 40 years and currently have agents, elected and appointed, in our government dismantling our systems from within until they can get them finished off legislatively and judicially. They're among those who approved offering Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Trump, who'd made a deal (what'd Trump get?) to choose from the list they and their allies provided. The Kochs and others who share their goals have operated clandestinely behind front operations and agents for decades, and their conspiracies have only become exposed enough for their name to be widely recognized in the past 5 years or so. But obviously not widely enough.

If a Designated Survivor event took out all the people currently in the line of succession but one, that one would very likely be a Koch ally elected for sharing their ideology and for willingness to serve their interests.

Long ago in a private meeting of people like him, Charles Koch declared that the only legitimate functions of government are protection of person and property. He thought possibly also protection against fraud, presumably a problem to them. Protection of person and property, btw, is police, fire and military, not medical care. They don't need help with that.

The study itself is legitimate nonetheless.

You claim the study is legitimate, but you cherry pick some numbers, and completely ignore everything else it says.

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2018, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

The study says medicare for all will ultimately be cheaper than the current system by several trillion dollars. Not sure we are on the same page...? Not sure we arent, either.

Stop lying about the savings numbers. Even the 2 trillion number is debateable, but now you are throwing out complete bullshit numbers.

Possibility within the next decade.

The ACA is better than nothing, but you still have millions who are going to be in situations like my Dad's, facing financial ruin due to the fucked up situation our country is in. But do go qhead and keep laughing.

seats left unchallenged are being challenged using this issue and turning some races into UNNECESSARY risks like a certain recent situation that has left us here in the first place.

I can therefore only assume my agenda and those who are doing this is not the same. Mine is to remove the nazis THEN get democratic socialism.

This makes it anything but unnecessary and likely several steps in the right direction for the country.

explain why.

Having a bad day, are we?

I am talking about the path of LEAST resistance to REMOVING NAZIS from our government.

YOU?

Unless.

If it comes, it will ride in on the backs of True Believers, very few of them understanding what is kicking them in the ribs.



i think it really IS all about fascists in the WH and how to consolidate power. The Kochs claim they're libertarians, but i suspect they're plain old archconservatives like their Nazi-admirer dad. Under fascist governments, the duty is of the people to serve and obey the state, via business and the military usually, not the state to obey and serve individuals. And certainly not to provide expensive healthcare the state doesn't need them to have.

entertain one thought?

first place, which is happening again, will fuck us again BIG time or due to sheer numbers we will overcome that madness.

We will know real soon.

Yes, when my house is on fire and I am seconds away from being physically burned, I do NOT take time out to look at paint swatches to decide what I am going to paint the living room IF I survive the fire.

That some folks refuse to accept this tells me something.s

I mean most of the people I interact with wherever I do are not stupid people. They KNOW we are burning down, they KNOW we are inches from a total fascist dictatorship, so their agenda and comments tell me a lot.

Someone who only has Medicare can't afford a long hospital stay (think 2+ months) or treatment for a major illness such as cancer.

I'm all for universal health care, but it needs to be better than Medicare for All.

are comprehensive and universal. Neither simply extend the current Medicare system to everyone.

Medicare. Your statement about cancer is simply not true. Regarding your statement about long hospital stays - this is also simply not true. Medicare Part A covers a stay in the hospital for any single spell of illness or injury within a time frame of 90 days. This is known as a benefit period, and there's no limit to the number of benefit periods you can have.

Medicare is a great program. Unfortunately, instead of Medicare providing all the care, which would be preferable - our government has to give private insurers a piece of it - so people buy supplementals. Those are for: Copayments, Coinsurance (usually the 20% above the 80%) and Deductibles. There are many many different supplemental gap plans. They all have the same requirements (ex. "A" must include XXXXX whether it's offerred by Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, etc. They compete on service, location and price. Then there are private Advantage programs. Another government give-away to private insurance. After reviewing all our options, we realized we would never participate in a Medicare Advantage program because it's entirely private run - but once again the government supports those low rates they offer - and the private insurers limit the care while pretending it's some great thing that they give you a membership to a gym. You've got private insurers giving you a pool of physicians to choose from, and reviewing what care you can and can't get, etc.

We bought supplementals because we travel and wanted flexibility to go to any doctor we wanted. So we bought a pretty inclusive "N" supplemental. It wasn't ridiculously expense at $156/month. That is in addition to the $134 that comes out of our SS for Medicare. So for less than $300 a month for me and less than $300 for my husband we have had fabulous care. Medicare has never denied us anything. I went through breast cancer treatment. My husband has a blood cancer that required a stem cell transplant and continuous tests and monitoring of his health. Medicare never questioned a single thing. Our only issue is with private insurance prescription plans. Unfortunately Medicare isn't involved in that Part D (thank you Bush) so you must get private drug plans. My husband's maintenance drug is $10,000 a month for 21 pills. Even with insurance his copay would be $800 a month. We rely on the Leukemia Association for a grant to cover that.

Medicare For All would bring all the many different government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Veteran's different programs, the ridiculous subsidies the government currently pays to private health insurers just so people can afford their insanely inflated rates, etc. For me - I sure as hell would like my tax dollars going to health care and not subsidies to already uber-profitable insurers. People in group insurance plans paid for by their employees are always seeing their costs go up/their deductibles go up and they never see how much their employer is paying. Add that to the mix. Individuals who aren't getting subsidies from tax payers to give to private insurers are paying extremely high monthly premiums plus deductibles and cost-shares. Add that to the mix. Individuals who are getting subsidies are still paying a hefty monthly premium and deductible and taxpayers are already paying their remaining costs. Add that to the mix. Bigger pool, better cost sharing, better coverage. And private insurers will still sell additional policies - like other countries have. Don't want to wait for an MRI for elective surgery - policy! Want a private room - policy! Want coverage for cosmetic surgery - policy!

But at least people won't have to send their kids out to sell lemonade to pay for their chemo. And while you are dealing with a difficult illness - you don't also have to deal with losing your house or going into bankruptcy to pay the hospital bills!

insurance for catastrophic illness only? Then, regular stuff would be covered under everyone's own policy, and the emergency, massive illness (and the bills that come w/ it) would be covered by a national health policy for all?

Just curious...I think it's a shame that those who need it the most, end up declaring bankruptcy and the like, just to stay healthy and alive.

are currently unable to afford insurance, wouldn't it?

I would hope that would be one of its purposes.

And PS, please don't make the mistake of thinking that those who don't believe MFA would be cheaper are rejecting MFA. It is logical to believe that, if we are to cover a vast quantity of people who are currently uncovered, costs will rise. However, most of us - even those who are derisively called "establishment" and "centrist" - DO NOT believe increased costs would be a reason NOT to adopt it or another universal healthcare system.

or my father's increase an additional 1000 a month? I strongly doubt it.

That's just a start. Lets get people to understand the concept of healthcare being a right. Medicare for all does not do that. Why fight for such a massive change just to have to continue to fight for subsidies and continue putting people in the position they are insured but can't afford care.

You need to add those costs in.

to the program increase our FICA taxes to an amount equal to what we pay in premiums, copays and deductibles now?

Medicare does not pay full cost of care. You have to buy another plan to pay for what Medicare doesn’t pay.

My supplemental is $140 per month and I almost never go to the doctor.

I pay around $200 for part B and about $50 for drug coverage. So I pay about $390 per month and I see my mental health provider twice a year and my prescription is free. I have no co pays.

Medicare for all should cost everyone at least what I pay or around $400 per month.

A family would most likely pay $1,000

and it would save my dad at least 600 dollars a month.

Not sure if "for a family" would increase the monthly costs, remember, everyone would get taxed individually for FICA taxes, children would pay nothing yet still be covered, etc.

Of course, it really depends on how its covered, and how the tax to pay for it is structured, I would imagine it would be a progressive tax where the amount you pay for Medicare would increase with your income.

Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2018, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Quite conclusively


https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/&ved=2ahUKEwjCvOml4_zcAhUMI3wKHbFuCZ4QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2zsm_aPDHmERoaZaqSqXlh

cheaper initially unless the government kicks in subsidies.

There are several reasons for this, but even the elderly have to pay the $140 every month, the 20% that Medicare doesn’t cover for most services, and the relatively small deductible UNLESS they also have Medicaid, purchase a supplemental policy including a drug plan, or sign up for Medicare Advantage.

Long-term, with some changes to the system, some people will pay less or nothing, but others will pay more in premiums or taxes. There still won’t be coverage for dental or vision care, or hearing aids, in most cases.

In any event, cost be damned, everyone deserves coverage and we need to restructure the system to make healthcare as affordable as possible, even if some healthcare providers and companies get hit.

People will of course say it will be cheaper, and maybe it will be. But it won’t be cheap. California, Colorado and Vermont found that the needed increase in taxes needed to fund a single payer system, while less than what most people were paying, were still to high to present it to constituents. Where one might be paying $700 in premiums now, they might end up paying $600 in premiums and/or taxes if we went to Medicare-for-All. That's an improvement, but not something that is going to make anyone dance.

a pretty good deal and a lot better than what most are paying so why wouldn't it be cheaper again? And you do know that the government already kicks in subsidies. Lots and lots of subsidies. For very expensive plans that people buy on the exchange because most people have difficulty paying those inflated premiums.

And you're numbers of $700 in premiums as oppossed to $600 in premiums is, I realize, are just made up. But even still - you don't think people wouldn't dance at saving $1,200 a year and getting better healthcare than they currently get?

$300 a month covers 25% of what Part B (basically, doctors and labs) is projected to cost and your coverage for plan N. Part A (essentially costly Hospital care) is paid for entirely by Medicare taxes and deductibles and co-insurance. I will bet you, that even a 35 year old won't get coverage under Medicare-for-all for less than $500 a month plus co-insurance and deductibles.

If you or I -- I have Medicare too -- were paying the full cost through private insurance, we'd be paying well over $1,200 a month.

I really don't think people will dance for $1,200 in the first year, because as soon as rates go up 15% in the next year, that will evaporate.

Again, I think Medicare-for-All -- or a Public Option that will be easier to enact -- is the only way to go. Everyone needs to be insured. Those that need subsidies should get them, and those who can afford it, should pay more. Recent tax cuts need to be reversed, military budget needs to be cut, and the entire health care system needs to be restructured with the aim of removing as much profit as possible that does not go toward innovation and investment.

I have been paying into Medicare for 40 years and am a few years away from retirement on top of paying for health insurance premiums. In essence, I have been prepaying my retirement health insurance for the last 40+ years. Naturally premiums should be relatively low.

That's like expecting that everyone could receive UBI payments equal to what the average Social Security payments are.

To insure everyone as soon as they are born and assuming that utilization would most likely go up, I would expect that Medicare would cost each insured substantially more than it does now. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it by the way, but it potentially could cost more than the current system

who thinks it will not be a major cost, is wrong.

We need a lot of things — healthcare, education, job re-education, guaranteed income as technology and automation replace jobs, bolstering Social Security, and much more. Balancing all of that won’t be easy in our messed up society.

We are going to have to slash our military spending, which will eliminate a lot of our remaining high paying jobs.

We’ll have to increase taxes. People will raise he’ll, even if it is good for them. When we cut payments to doctors and hospitals, they’ll likely cut payments to nurses, medical assistants, lab techs, etc.

And I’m for doing these things. Think how negative GOPers are going to be.

And people who are paying that plus also paying their private plans in anticipation of getting Medicare will not have to pay all those years of much higher premiums and deductibles while they pay their taxes. So younger people who are now paying very large premiums and deductibles will still save something even if their monthly policy is higher than a senior’s $300 month plan.

People will still be paying into Medicare just as they do now through taxes. And many of those people will not be taking out in care what they pay in until they need it. To make some arbitrary statement that the full cost of Medicare is $1200 a month and rates will go up 15% the next year is based on what? I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to say. You say Medicare For All or a Public Option will be easier to enact. Well then why are you arguing against Medicare For All? And hopefully you understand the concept of insurance being based on shared costs, right? Bigger pool and all? A public option is a compromise that may wind up having to be the compromise. But it’s a lousy starting point. If you allow people not to participate in the pool and not have a large pool of younger healthier people, you run the risk of winding up with what in states is the high risk pool, which is unaffordable to sustain.

Im truly at a loss why people think giving subsidies to private insurance companies from taxpayers money, and having to administer dozens and dozens of different programs so it’s harder and harder to streamline administrative costs or why shareholders dividends should be the ultimate goal of a company rather than care for citizens.

California, Colorado, Vermont legislators scraped plans for single-payer when they saw how much taxes would have to increase. Didn’t matter to them that it might just be replacing costs we already pay, they knew there are too many stupid voters who’d never get it. Read about it.

Would be interested to know what you think the full cost of Medicare is.

even say something so silly. I responded to someone on what Medicare costs seniors. I never said it’s the cost of Medicare For All. All I’ve ever contended is that Medicare For All will cost Americans less and more people will be covered with better care. It’s true in every case. And we’d have country after country to look to.

Are you asking me what I think Medicare the program costs the government each year as an overall program? I would have to research that. If you are asking how much my particular true cost is that’s stupid. My care is completely different than my husbands based on our health. If you are asking what the cost of the program is overall for seniors divided by the number of seniors who participate, again irrelevant for the purpose of Medicare For All because right now Medicare is given to people 65 and over and by nature of age, going to be more costly to cover than an average 30 year old. But if you want me to give you the cost of the overall program, I’ll have to get back to you after researching actual government figures.

care to the tens of millions without care or who can’t afford the deductibles and coinsurance. In many of the proposals for Medicare for All, they are throwing in dental, hearing, vision that Medicare does not cover adequately, and deductibles and coinsurance.

I’m think it is perfectly reasonable to ask you what your full premium would be under Medicare as it is now, and even as some of the proposals envision it.

I know you think I’m against universal coverage by bringing all this up, but I’m not. I’ve been for it since about 1979.

Various programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans care by VA and Tricare, CHIP, different state healthcare programs for children, subsidies we pay for helping people buy insurance on the private market, what employers and employees pay, premiums, deductibles, copays, uninsured care at emergency rooms and many more programs.

What my full premium would be under Medicare as it is now is impossible to know. I suppose you could take the cost of Medicare in a year and divide it by the # of people who get it to get a cost per person but as it is meaningless in the context of a universal program similar to Medicare which covers all ages it’s kind of an exercise I have no desire to research.

I don’t think you are against anything. I don’t know you and a message board isn’t any place to know enough about your likes and dislikes. I am just addressing the info in your posts.

Medicare For All was adopted as the name because it’s an easily identifiable program that is highly rated by the people who get it and because people uunderstand it is a program that is administered by the government that doesn’t rely on profits and million dollar salaries and shareholders and high administrative costs. To try to make it mean that it’s exactly the same as Medicare is now but for everyone with no tweaks to it is disingenuous and naive.

current deductibles, coinsurance, dental, tens of millions of un/under-insured, etc., as most proposals include.

We’ll have to get significant tax increases to cover it, and all the other stuff we want like education, shoring up Social Security, etc. I’m for it, but I doubt most folks are when their take home gets cut.

Covered went thru some growing pains but none wish they had our system. I’m not sure who those naive people are you speak of, but I’m sure they will have some growing pains too. It’s still the right way to go and will ultimately cost people less than what they are currently paying for more with more people covered and less anxiety of how they will stay out of debt. I look forward to the day we don’t have to celebrate children selling lemonade to pay for mother’s chemo or start go fund me pages to pay off a hospital stay.

Glad you are for it. Try telling those other people the benefit if you find them complaining about their take home pay.

our detriment. I hope that changes before the system just implodes dragging a lot of sick people with it.

Sort of like "right to work" states.

So, for example, allow 55+ year old enroll, then children below the age of 18, then, year after year, allow people at 5/10 year increments, by age, enroll in it until everyone, from cradle to grave, is covered.

There are still at least 40% of the country opposed to Medicare-for-all. It will be tough to ram it down their throats, although I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that stupid and/or callous.

If anyone can opt into Medicare and it is as good as we think, within 5 to 10 years, 80% of us will select it. Then, we can tell the other 20%, "sorry, but you are going to have to take what everyone else has."

I just think, we all need to realize it will be expensive to do. The only people who will really see a "savings" are those who can't afford any coverage now, or those who are right on the edge. The rest will likely pay more. Again, I'm fine with that if everyone is covered.

But you are right, come up with a doable long-term plan, and enact it. If GOPers try to scuttle the new plan like they have Obamacare rather than improving it, we vote them out.

Remember all of the cost savings people are promoting? That is assuming everybody is enrolled in 4 years. There is no gradual adoption period laid out in the legislation. It will be crammed down everybody's throats.

even if it will help him and his family.

Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2018, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

A lot more. Second, as you point out, healthcare Is more than going to the doctor. There is durable medical equipment. There are Drugs. There is homehealth. There is hospice. There is preventative care education and screening. There are therapies. Medicare as it is right now does NOT pay for everything a quality healthcare plan would provide. Its great that’s your experience is good, but I work in a hospital where we take in underserved population, and fighting Medicare is for needed drugs and therapies is a constant battle. Need to self cath to pee? Medicare pays for only a certain number of catheters a month. Have an ostomy or illiostomy? Medicate only provides a certain number of bags a month. Need a electric wheelchair? You get one every 5 years regardless of circumstances


Another thing to consider is where drugs are manufactured, not just negotiated prices. Right now the US is going through critical shortages of things like opioids and electrolytes. We’ve outsourced a lot manufacturing and when Puerto Rico got hit so did our health care system. I have zero answers for this.

Cost and quality should go hand in hand. Medicare upgraded their coding systems and started bundling care. For instance, if you go to get a hip replacement, Medicare will reimburse just so much. Hospitals eat a lot of cost as it is right now.

I’m all for a single payer system, starting with a public option. I hope we get there and soon. But I do wish people stopped presenting it as less complex than it is.

The main short-term advantage of Medicare-for-All is that people who have no or crummy insurance would get coverage. That's worth it right there. But, any cost savings will take awhile.

but it also wouldn't be as cheap as other countries either. We would save money by better negotiation for prices of drugs, devices, hospitals, and physician services. Plus we would have lower administration costs and better incentives to pay for preventive care which saves money in the long run. On the other hand we have an insane gun problem which is horribly expensive in terms of medical care. One study showed that Louisiana spends more on care of gun shot victims than on its entire Medicaid program. Also, given the rate of debt that many of our doctors have there is a limit to how low physician fees can fall. I would think we would fall somewhere in the 80% of what we spend now. We would still have the most expensive health care system in the world.

I've been checking on it and my monthly premium is yet to be known. Still in the process of figuring all of this out.

Just ask the people in Germany, Great Britain and France.

That would be a hard sell here

away from enrollees and where the money is spent. There's a lot of moving parts, though. For ex, what happens to VA health care? Or FEHB for federal employees? Or private insurance?