• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Voters are souring on 'Medicare for all

southfork

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
16,010
Likes
15,065
#1
Voters are souring on 'Medicare for all'

Rick Newman 21 hours ago


Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who's running for president and favors getting rid of the private health care system. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
If somebody offered you a sandwich for free, you’d probably take it. $10? You might take it, if it was really good. $30? No thanks.
Voters are beginning to do similar cost-benefit analysis on Medicare for all, the Democratic plan for universal health care that’s sure to be a top campaign issue in 2020. In a January Morning Consult poll, 56% of respondents said they support Medicare for all, while 29% opposed it. Less than a month later, support fell to 50% while opposition rose to 38%.
The only thing that changed? People began to get a better understanding of what Medicare for all actually is—including the need to eliminate the private insurance system.
Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, who’s running for president, triggered this deeper level of analysis on January 29, when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her if she favored getting rid of private insurance. “Let’s eliminate all that,” Harris said. “We need to have Medicare for all.”
‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’
Americans feel no special love for insurance companies, but they’re not eager to give up what they’re familiar with, either. About 156 million Americans—nearly half the population—get health care coverage through their employer. Another 21 million buy their own insurance in the private market. So Medicare for all would move 177 million Americans from a health care system that generally works into a government-run system that has never covered that many people.
A volunteer hands out a poster as Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders was set to address a “Medicare for All” rally in downtown Columbia, S.C. on Saturday, Oct. 20, 2018. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard).
President Obama’s famous mistake with the Affordable Care Act was telling Americans, untruthfully, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” At least 4 million people lost their coverage because it didn’t meet new rules under the ACA. Obama’s flub and the abrupt loss of coverage for those folks made the law unpopular from the start, and left it vulnerable to Republican efforts to kill it, which still aren’t over.
Medicare for all would end insurance-as-we-know-it for 44 times as many people as were affected by the ACA changes. Medicare is generally a well-run program that its participants like—but extending it to the entire population would entail massive changes likely to put the program under stress.
The biggest change would be a profound reworking of the tax code, since Medicare for all would require at least $3 trillion a year in new government revenue. So business and individual taxes would rise across the board. There would be offsetting savings, since companies and individuals would no longer pay insurance premiums and many out-of-pocket costs. But the transition would be turbulent and some people would end up as net losers.
Extending coverage to everybody would also lead to a surge in demand for caregivers and facilities, which would almost certainly necessitate some kind of rationing. Overall health care outcomes might improve under Medicare for all, but there would be highly visible strains.
More plausible plans are beginning to surface. Some Congressional Democrats are pushing a “Medicare at 50” legislation that would let people between 50 and 64 buy Medicare coverage the way they’d buy private insurance, except for some it would be way cheaper. That would help people who don’t get coverage through an employer and earn too much money to qualify for ACA subsidies. Such people sometimes pay $20,000 or more in annual premiums. But there’s already opposition from hospitals and other providers who worry that more Medicare coverage—and less private insurance—would hurt profits, because Medicare typically pays less. Even the simple-sounding plans are complicated.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,751
Likes
17,918
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#2
Its a bailout/buyout for the Medical & Insurance industries. The major Insurance re-insurers went bust 2007-2009, health insurers can no longer extract profit margins like they once did... without margins the insurance companies can no longer provide the medical industry with obscene profits... Insurance companies want off the hook & the medical industry wants to retain their margins... both are seeking .gov intervention as an answer to the very problems both have created, purposely in the name of institutionalized greed!
 

southfork

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
16,010
Likes
15,065
#3
99% of the people were fucked royally by obamacare and continue to be to this day, many doctors wont take medicare because of the low amount they pay doctors, wont be long till doctors go into another field
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
5,139
Likes
4,658
#4
Obamacare 2.0
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,530
Likes
25,131
Location
ORYGUN
#5
Voters are souring on 'Medicare for all'

I am "all in" I love the idea !!
As long as "All" includes "ALL" gov. employees & CONgress !!
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,419
Likes
5,998
Location
right here right now
#6
As much as I hate to say this. The only way out of this unholy triumvirate of Government and Insurance at the top of the triangle and medicine at the bottom, is a total economic crash. No way we can somehow scrap these parasitic systems of health, wealth and wisdom. Too many ingrained habits. Too many misunderstandings/miseducation. Way too many expectations on both sides of the equasion. We, the people, aren't even in the equasion, except as fodder.

Rockafeller medicine, and tontine schemes of insurance are nothing but frauds that are now forced on us by legal legislation. How the hell did we get to this point?

Oh yeah, greed. Which will never be solved. Hence the crash...
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
13,346
Likes
11,943
Location
Florida
#7
Less government intervention would open up the entire industry to competition and lower costs. Just think if the government was in control of development and manufacturing of cell phones?
 

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,389
Likes
4,872
Location
Northern most Southern State
#8
Back of napkin calculations based on my parents info as they just signed up for Medicare....

Currently pay 1.45% of income to fund a plan that has 150 million payers taking care of 60 million users.....the same 150 million payers would see Medicare taxes go up 5 fold to 7.25% to take care of 330million users.

Monthly Medicare premiums are about $125/month...monthly supplement to cover the rest is $230/month...part D premium is about $40/month ...these are all per person.....


So a family of 4 making $100k (similar to my situation) would see $5800 a year in new taxes, $6000 a year in Medicare premiums, $10,800 in supplement premiums and $2000 in part D premiums. Over $24,000 in costs before we even use medical care. Hell no....

Currently we pay under $4000 a year combined through our employer plans before we use care...if we hit our out of pocket maxes each we see an additional $7500....so all in costs currently would be less the $12k to cover my family of four...and they want me to believe $24k Medicare for all for my family is a better deal.
 
Last edited: