Vox: "Medicare for All is Inevitable Now"
Some may be wondering what effects the bombshell news from Texas about a judge who has ruled ACA to be unconstitutional might have on the push for MFA.
WTF? I never expected this:
After an election in which the fate of Obamacare protections were decisive, a single, hard right judge destroys the system and defeated Republicans support this. It is time to move to some version of Medicare for all and end this nonsense.
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) December 15, 2018
Iglesias at Vox lays out a case for MFA moving forward.
Medicare-for-all is inevitable now Donald Trump is making Medicare-for-all inevitable - https://t.co/Rs3UMeLoFL#Medicare #Medicare Broker #Insurance pic.twitter.com/Zj0ULwj2Ea
— Cristobal Velasco (@vel770202) August 15, 2018
Republican members, in other words, aren’t facing “Harry and Louise”-type ads from industry, and what campaign contributions they may have lost out on are more than made up for by support from ideological right-wing donors.But they also don’t have anything constructive to say on the subject. As Jonathan Chait writes, “having spent years insisting they had an army of wonks who could design a better alternative to the Obamacare ‘train wreck,’ the Republican plan of attack has dissolved into a rearguard sabotage campaign with no pretense of doing anything to help the poor and sick afford medical care.”
The simple fact is that though they don’t like to admit it, they just disagree with the moral premise that the government has an obligation to ensure that people get the health care they need. And that’s going to mean doing it the old-fashioned way — by enrolling as many people as possible, including, ultimately, everyone in government programs that keep operating unless Congress actually repeals them.
The notion of a compromise strategy that would allow Democrats to achieve their basic goals while being flexible and industry-friendly with the means was appealing on a number of levels, but it depended fundamentally on the notion that Republicans would treat such a compromise as stable. The reality is they won’t, so Democrats will have to choose — either abandon a generations-long principle (which isn’t going to happen) or move forward into the single-payer future.
Heh. Yeah, yeah, Iglesias, it's the Republicans that are to blame. Nah.
This is a nightmare. The ACA should have been #MedicareForAll but the #Democrats didn’t fight for it and the #Republicans fought just as hard against the #ACA as they would have #SinglePayer. And we would have been secure.#SaturdayMorning https://t.co/rtSmQDWMI3
— RoseAnn DeMoro (@RoseAnnDeMoro) December 15, 2018
And why not work to pass it? I have family that are part of the 30 million uninsured. MFA is polling quite high with the public. And ACA is such a fcked up system.
ACA is so confusing and complex that many just never go through applying, even if they can afford it.
Reminder to my fellow millennials to get your act together & buy insurance before tonight’s deadline.
Is open enrollment a pain? Yes.
Is it expensive? Yes.
But it’s WAY better than being uninsured (been there) & reason enough to fight for #MedicareForAll.https://t.co/iDaqb0sD6u— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) December 15, 2018
The ruling that ACA is unconstitutional is expected to be appealed and eventually overruled.
And we all know that it is going to take some miracle for the Corporate Dems to ever let a real single payer pass. Some are saying primary those who would stand in the way. Fat chance that enough would be elected to get er done.
I am pretty sure that the Dims can still stop MFA from happening, or else screw it up so bad trying to protect their big donors that it will be worse that ACA.
We will see.
Comments
What's your prediction?
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
My prediction is
that the Dem Party Leadership will continue to strive to bolster the toxic ACA, at the same time that they tease and deceive the Party Base with promises of, as Holder put it--"some version of MFA."
Indeed!
Now, if only we can get folks to take Holder's revealing statement, literally!
Seriously, it's no accident that Dem Party lawmakers presented at least '8' MFA/Buy-In proposals.
IOW, the purpose of that was to muddy-the-waters during any discussion of MFA, and, "to give cover" to more conservative/corporatist Dems, so that they had the capacity to glom onto a proposal that is anything BUT MFA, while "pretending" that they support the concept of MFA.
Whew!
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Based on past history, your
prediction sounds quite rational Mollie.
Woe to the millions without coverage or care, right?
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
No, it shouldn't have to be "woe
to currently uninsured/those with not coverage."
That's the point I've been trying to make. The current Traditional/Original Medicare program--signed into law in July 1965--can be made available to all citizens, if lawmakers would simply amend Title XVIII. (adding that coverage for unborn, should begin at birth)
Other amendments should include:
Amend Title XVIII to include 'all' (not just infusion drugs, etc.) prescriptions drugs in Medicare Part B. Therefore, no need for Part D plans in the future.
Mandate that everyone will be covered by a fully subsidized Part 'F' plan (Medigap)--which picks up every cent of medical costs that aren't covered by Traditional Medicare.
The idea that we have to completely dismantle Traditional Medicare--which both MFA plans propose--is absurd. Why do that? It would afford lawmakers another opportunity to 'reform' the current Medicare FFS program, making it a managed care program like MA (Medicare Advantage)--IOW, incorporating even more rationing of care/services. IMO, that shouldn't be the objective, under any circumstances.
Let's not forget--there are currently 30-40 million (not sure of current figure) folks uninsured.
Now, what did the ACA actually accomplish?
Currently, approximately 8-9 million folks are covered by ACA plans.
IMO, we could have accomplished this by putting that relatively small number of folks in Medicare. (after amending the original law, of course)
Instead, because Dems were attempting to cost shift/find savings, they 'reformed' our entire healthcare system--leaving all of it weaker, and costlier. Just look at how much RX's have skyrocketed since Dems pushed through the ACA.
Frankly, I don't trust, nor want, Dems or Repubs to get near any of our healthcare programs (especially, making a major overhaul of Medicare)--ever again.
Again, we can legislate 'enhancement' of the original 1965 Medicare Title XVIII Bill, including, amending it to subsidize the cost of the expanded Medicare program based upon a sliding-scale, or, fully subsidize the cost for everyone, across-the-board.
BTW, Sen Klobuchar's doing 'a Schumer.'
I'll post the transcript from FTN after the first of the year.
Have a good one, DO!
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
No long term care though, in that original law?
That's a big oops imo.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Great point--so, 'amend' Trad Medicare program so that skilled
nursing care extends beyond 100 days. IOW, so that it covers LTC/skilled nursing care, or, provides unlimited institutional/skilled care.
Bottom line, the only reason that lawmakers are proposing that we "reinvent the wheel," or, start from scratch with a new MFA Bill/program--dubbed MFA, only for branding--is so they can greatly limit healthcare spending--again, by implementing so-called "managed care" and rationing.
Look at the partial chart below, which is from PNHP's chart of Bernie's proposal for MFA.
Notice--his proposal also has 'cost containment' features similar to Rep Higgins' Bill.
Now, Higgins' Bill spells out that the US Comptroller General would appoint the Commission to "continue to reform payment and delivery systems." Bernie's Bill doesn't spell out who is in charge of that "reform."
"Continue to reform payment and delivery systems" (taken from the chart) is an euphemism for setting up a "managed care" system. And, "Global Budgeting"--with it's 'finite' budget, compared to Trad Medicare's 'open-ended' budget--also furthers the goal of achieving a "managed care" system.
Hey, sorry I forgot to include LTC.
Obviously, LTC coverage is a biggie.
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Prayamal had mentioned in that intereview the other day.
Had forgotten that tech nursing is in but limited. Thanks.
Here's Wendell Potter
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Thanks for that link, too! :-) EOM
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
We are very fortunate to have you participate here!
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Appreciate the kind words, DO. Lately, on this
topic, I pretty much feel like the "skunk at the Garden Party."
I'm pretty sure that you know (me well enough to know) that I'm in no way attempting to 'defend' the insurance industry by suggesting that we "amend" TM. But, I do think it's 'safer' to mandate major changes in our current TM coverage [already stated repeatedly this evening] while avoiding starting from scratch with a new MFA Bill, or Buy-In, that might give lawmakers room to wreck further havoc on our already lousy and inadequate patchwork of healthcare programs.
(While we're at it, vision and dental care should be included. In short, all healthcare should be covered.)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I truly believe that today's lawmakers (by and large) cannot be trusted with overhauling our Medicare system. So, the next best thing, IMO, is to "amend" a less than perfect/totally comprehensive bill that was created by a President in a different era. At least, President Johnson, for whatever reason, seemed to care about addressing poverty/old age poverty--as our current-day Medicare and Medicaid programs illustrate.
Hey, gotta pay bills; then, Mr M and I are going to toss around a few more puppy names!
Everyone have a nice Sunday evening!
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Interested in what is being proposed?
And of course can't be too surprised about what some Dims want:
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
A Medicare buy-in
would be a HUGE victory over the establishment, because they have no intention of granting even that.
But to get even that the Left must demand MFA.
More than just the Left will need to demand it in
order for it to happen, and even then, big donors to both parties may win the day. But yes, all should demand it for sure.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
As an aside about Medicare 'Buy-Ins'--
the cost for some of the proposals is $684.33 per individual. (He states it in annual terms--$8,212. He claims that it is still much cheaper than an average Gold Plan on the Exchange.)
Also, these plans will likely 'bolster' the ACA--not weaken it.
That is because they are to be "sold" in the ACA Exchanges. Which, I suppose, is 'why' the Higgins' bill is named "Medicare Buy-In and Healthcare Stabilization Act."
IOW, it is designed to stabilize the ACA Health Exchanges, by removing enough middle-aged folks from the private ACA plans, which they hope will lower the premiums for younger people (49 and younger) enrolled in the ACA plans--therefore, keeping the ACA Exchanges from imploding (due to exorbitant premiums).
Higgins is a self-described conservative, centrist, and independent Democrat (per, Wikipedia)--as his proposal reflects.
Note that the same system, or criteria, as applies to current ACA plans, will apply to these Buy-In proposals when figuring what, if any, ACA "premium tax credits," one will qualify for if/when purchasing a buy-in plan.
IOW, if you don't qualify for the tax credit under the ACA, you're in the same boat when purchasing Higgins' buy-in plan.
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I wonder if the Supreme Court will
overturn the ruling.
I do not believe Medicare for All will make it to the home stretch.
My prediction is ACA will remain in effect until it implodes, or the Supreme Court upholds the ruling and we go back to the same insurance scam we had prior to ACA.
I am very pessimistic. There is too much lobby money in this issue.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Hey otc, I think most of us here are pessimistic for the same
reasons you are.
Bernie, well hard to trust him. But he is running on it. Heh. But what's to say the Dems won't just screw him again?
But as Mollie has been saying we have to look at the details .......
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
We can't go back to pre ACA.
The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries could no longer extract sufficient payments from employers and employees. The ACA is a way to move tax dollars into the medical sector. It's working.
Obviously VOX is forgetting this. /S
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4]
No, not forgetting it, Iglesias supported HER all the way.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
This video
We all need to be sure to spread it far and wide whenever this debate arises in real life and online. I venture to guess that most people have forgotten about it, and they need to be reminded. Repeatedly.
We have to face reality on this issue.
First, MFA at this point has a quite varied definition depending on who you're talking to. So before anyone gets excited about greater support for MFA, they should understand where it's coming from. For instance, Holder said, "some version of Medicare for all". Whatever that means. We went thru this shit with Obamacare.
Second and most importantly, we don't live in a democracy. We live in an oligarchy/plutocracy that completely controls the political process and has the power of major corporations, Wall Street, you name it. If anyone thinks the "plutarchy" is going to go all the way on this issue via the democratic party, they're dreaming. The best we'll get is another version of Obamacare that purports to cover more people and addresses a few dog whistle sub-issues like pre-existing conditions and costs of drugs. Some bones will be thrown, but the insurance companies will still rape most of us and the major corporations will still maintain health care as a FOR PROFIT function in our society.
The only answer is a completely nationalized health care system recognizing health care as an equal right, preventing the highest quality care from going to the rich and the rest of us getting stuck with a much less effective system.
Don't fall for any of this shit, it's going to take a revolution to get a socialist health care system EQUAL FOR ALL. And that's what we have to have. The bullshit incremental progressive approach isn't going to work, we're already ten years out from Obamacare and we've regressed further. That will continue.
Rant over.
Yep.
As I said.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
My fear is that IF we get a Medicare for All,
they will turn this into an opportunity to screw universal health care and medicare all in one fell swoop. I do not trust this group of thugs to do anything of value for anyone but corporate America.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Not to mention that
Medicare itself is so ridiculously complicated. But I'm for anything that provides more healthcare and less bs.
dfarrah
Agree that MA, or Medicare Advantage, can
be complicated. It's also putting us a step closer to a Medicare Voucher System, as proposed by Ryan, Wyden, and (Alice) Rivlin, in the past.
IMO, nothing's complicated about expanding/enhancing Traditional/Original Medicare to include "all" prescription drugs (which I believe was the case when my parents were enrolled), mandating Medigap Plan 'F' coverage, including LTC coverage, and, amending Medicare Title XVIII to mandate that coverage begins at birth.
The cost of the entire kit and caboodle can/should be partially, or fully subsidized. Perhaps on a progressive income scale, or, across-the-board. Suppose it would depend upon the funding mechanism, and the willingness of lawmakers to cut the MIC budget. (Frankly, I think most of the funding should come from cutting the military budget. The rest, probably from a 'wealth tax'--which, of course, will never happen!
)
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Traditional Medicare has been under attack for a while now.
For Profit Medicare Advantage has been getting subsidized and the insurance companies working to get a bigger share of the uncle sugar medicare pie.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Wow! Knew TM under attack, but that piece is scary!
Thanks for posting it.
Here's an excerpt, below.
*meaning the application of "managed care."
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
"Some form of Medicare"
That could end up being like Medicare Advantage, the giveaway to the insurance and healthcare industries that's currently being pushed onto Medicare participants.
At present, signing up for Medicare is just as complicated as the ACA. More so, maybe. You don't just choose between Gold, Silver and Bronze plans, as with ACA.
You can choose to go with basic "original" Medicare, with minimal payments. However, healthcare providers are not required to accept original Medicare as payment for their services. In our area, Big Al, most providers (except for hospitals) do not accept original Medicare.
If you do decide to go with original Medicare, it will not cover 100% of your expenses. You can fill in the gap by buying private supplemental insurance (MediGap). Different MediGap options give you different levels of coverage. More decisions to make, when you might not even know what your future needs will be. If you make the wrong decision, you can be charged penalties.
Medicare Advantage is private insurance using the HMO/PPO model. MedAdvantage plans generally cost less than MediGap policies. You have the usual "in network/outside network" problem with MedAdvantage plans. Healthcare providers like MedAdvantage, because they bill the private insurer directly and thus get paid more quickly.
So Medicare for All, if it just replicates the current complicated Medicare set-up, will be futile.
We need true single payer. Everyone is covered for the healthcare they need. Period.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Excellent comment, thanks.
PNHP is saying that of the 8 proposals currently on the table, only two qualify as single payer.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
@Centaurea I have Medicare
I have Medicare Advantage and it is perfect for my needs. I pay the basic cost, $134.00 with a deduction from my Social Security check every month.
My general doctors visits are no charge. Specialists are $40.00 and the meds I need, blood pressure pills, for example, are free and the eye drops the opthamalogist prescribed are $3.00 per month.
Yes. An insurance company is still involved and I believe it would be better to eliminate them from the process altogether.
If the entire US population could have what I have at the cost I'm paying it seems like it would be an improvement over what we now have.
The way to pay for it seems obvious. Now Medicare is divided into 2 pay categories. Mine, for middleclass and a higher rate for bigger incomes. On the lower end, there is Medicaid for some and nothing for many.
Why not a system that is 100% available to all with a sliding monthly sale of contribution? In my fantasy system, everybody would pay something. Every month. Even if that something is very little.
In my fantasy world, we get to this by a 5 year inclusion chunk every 2 years until we're all covered. So, in 2020 Medicare begins at 60. In 2022, Medicare is available to age 55. And so on.
Medicaid expansion is enacted in all 50 states. Including the 11 most reluctant states. ASAP.
I'm admitting this is my fantasy. But if there are major insanities, please let me know.
NYCVG
Well, I don't see the
point in phasing in over years.
IMO, the money going to insurance companies and Medicaid already more than covers the health care costs. If it didn't, the insurance companies wouldn't be so rabid about 'their take' of the medical care pie.
dfarrah
It's ridiculously complicated.
The insurance companies, of course, complicate the whole thing.
When we were selecting for my dad, I had several 8 foot long taped pages together (one for each plan) so that we could see the differences between the plans.
Additionally, you still have to deal with drugs that aren't covered, 'out of area' ridiculousness, etc.
dfarrah
Never stop ranting ... with so much shit and cruelty
being done to the American people, never stop.
Did they tell you already that Santa Claus will bring you the true and honest to God real Medicare for All or any real juicy socialist medical health care system? Oh, Santa Claus, please be for real.
https://www.euronews.com/live
So my question
on All of this revolves around the Individual Mandate to BUY insurance, to wit: if the Gov't CAN'T make me buy insurance for Health Care, how can State Gov't make me buy Auto Insurance?
Pandora? Box OPEN!
Gonna be Fun watching courts thread THAT f@ckin' needle!
fuck
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
I was wondering the same.
But for health care, I think the idea is to have a tax to put into the healthcare pool (and I would assume this would mean dropping employment-related policies).
dfarrah
Our elected officials
cannot envision our country without Blue Cross Blue Shield.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The newly elected supposedly can see a difference.
Ralph Nader provides a rubric for evaluating them.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/14/are-new-congressional-prog...
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
@on the cusp That's why it's our job
That's why it's our job to do so.
NYCVG
polls show
70% of the people want Medicare for all, including 52% of Republicans.
We protest, we sign petitions, we write our congressional members, and we still do not have what we want.
There is nothing about these acts that have resulted in anything concrete.
AOC et al are despised by the establishment. It is the establishment spouting the naysay.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp On the cusp....you
On the cusp....you get no disagreement from me.
I want M4A as a right and I'm happy to get there in any way we can.
The roadblocks are formidable. Profits seem to be the only driving force in America for now.
NYCVG
My understanding of this ..
is that most democrats are offering universal health care access, not coverage. Listen closely whenever they talk about it.
I once thought that corporations would get fed up with having to pay their share of premiums and tell congress to get them off the hook. Instead they went to the gig economy and now millions are having to pay for all of it themselves. Plus no more help with their social security taxes and no worker's compensation insurance.
While most of us keep paying higher insurance premiums
which are absolutely not needed in a health care system, that's proven with Medicare itself. And we'll keep paying higher deductibles, higher co-payments, etc. I had to go to the ER a few weeks ago, I also went two years ago. My co pay this time is $150. Last time it was $100. I have Kaiser and have for about twenty years. I remember when there weren't any copays. It's getting ridiculous.
I think the key is demanding a national non-profit health care system with equal access for all. Like I said, it has to be designed so the rich don't siphon off the good talent so it's a must that it covers every citizen. Any democratic politician NOT calling for a non-profit system covering ALL citizens is off the mark and we shouldn't accept it. This is actually an ideological battle against capitalism relative to basic rights. Health care, housing, personal income, etc.
BA I have a jb and I each have $500 deductible .
with our separate combo Medicare/ retiree health benefit.
How many Americans can afford that?
I recently had another endo/colonoscopy. Have colon cancer in the fam. I had met my deductible. My copay was $250.
Drug I need for respiratory health was $35 last year for three month supply. This year it is $70.
So yeah,
Based on past experience, we all no that there is a 99% chance that is not going to happen until we replace the Dems with another party.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Co-pays and
deductibles. What a joke.
Those payments result in much more unnecessary administrative costs.
I guess the notion was to discourage people from making unnecessary doctor visits, as if everyone is clamoring to get into those offices and hospitals.
I'm sure there are people who over-use health care, but they should be dealt with.
dfarrah
copays, premiums, deductibles
Fees on top of fees on top of fees. Who wants to pay 3x-4x for something we're already paying for?! What a racket!
This shit is bananas.
Yep.
Not to mention how entitled the insurance companies are.
They really rolled people with the notion that everyone owes them a profit for nothing but paper pushing.
dfarrah
SD wonder if you have had a chance to see this?
Included in comment link upthread.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/democrats-universal-health-care-...
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
This think tank is Hillary's new one
that she formed after she lost to Obama IIRC. This is the one that DiFi likes too.
Neera Tanden, President
My comment is kinda incorrect. This is what democrats are offering. Coverage is the same as access. I will try to find the article that explained why it's different than single payer.
SD I was hoping you would check out that article I linked,
and let me know what you think.
Seems there are 8 different plans.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/democrats-universal-health-care-...
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
I did read it
That's where I got the quote from. This is one of the 8 plans listed.
Bernie's and Jayapal's plans look like what we want.
Ugh, and who
wants to spend hours looking through plans?
Having to do that is yet another tax on our time and labor.
dfarrah
As an American expat in Canada
I can tell you that I adore the fact that there are no plans, no coverage, no nada. You have a SIN card (social insurance number). That's it. You walk in wherever, show them your card, and they deal with whatever. Once you get rid of the insurance layer, the overall administrative load on consumers and providers is reduced dramatically.
All is not perfect in the frozen north. But man, it is a ton better than what I had in the states and I had a sweet corporate plan. The only thing I like better about my old corporate plan was that it covered dental, optical, and hearing. Those things are all uncovered and require supplemental insurance if you want them. At first I was put off by that but then I realized there is little point in insurance for things like eyeglasses or even hearing aids. These are just "things I need" not some random expense that could bankrupt me out of the blue. So I go to the dentist. I pay my bill for cleaning and the occasional cavity. And I'm content that "insurance" isn't taking a 20% cut on it all and there's no paperwork involved.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
An essay on this would probably be appreciated by many
here.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
An essay? On what in particular?
I mean there's a hundred zillion essays on the Canadians (or in my case, British Columbian) health care system. I'm not really sure what an essay would need to say. I could certainly go over some of the highlights but it's not really a complicated system.
Taxes go in
Additional insurance payments go in... tiered by income level
Out of that you get "If it happens to you in a hospital, it's covered". What is not covered (and ought to be) is home care -- for instance, let's suppose you have MS. There appear to be some sort of grants/systems/something that helps with that but it's not a part of the main system and it really ought to be.
The other things that aren't covered are optical, dental, and hearing. But if you think about all of those things, they are fairly predictable budgetable expenses. If you get them paid via insurance (as we originally did) then you have to ask yourself where's the profit for the insurance company coming for. Specifically, my wife and i go to the dentist twice a year and depending on what all is done, let's call it an average of $200. So that's $800 per year. How would insurance make that any cheaper. There's not really enough risk to remove. The worst I've seen was a nasty bill for around $3500 for some bone rot. It's not the same as a million dollar open heart surgery.
If you want, you can of course buy supplemental insurance.
As a rule though, when we walk into a clinic, pharmacy, hospital, or whatever, there are no forms, no admittance procedure, no nothing. You show them your sin card and get on about your business. There is no determination as to whether they will see you since the only answer is "yes".
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Thanks for the feedback.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Mollie posted what I've been trying to explain about
the democrat's plan. I got mixed up last night, but yeah Schumer is telling the truth her.
Every one of us have access to almost everything that rich people have. But most of us don't have the money for them.
I'm on Medicaid and it's been great. There are a few things that it doesn't cover and not a lot of doctors take it because of their low reimbursements, but I get treatments and doctor visits easily. The price I'm paying physically for it ain't so great, but that's life ehh?
And I too remember when I had no copays or had to jump through so many hoops when I got it through work.
Thanks for posting this chart, SD. Later, I'll
post a screenshot of a PNHP chart/table comparing the '8' plans. It's a bit more extensive, and is geared toward showing the funding of the various proposals, in more detail.
As far as Mr M and I are concerned, that's very important. (And, I mean the "specifics" of the funding mechanism, not generalizations.) After all, we would never go out to purchase a house or vehicle, without heavily considering the cost. Same with health care/coverage.
Earlier today, Schumer also said,
Have a great weekend--our best to Charlie & Abby!
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
heh, I always wondered why Americans should be
happy to have "access" to something that's supposedly good for them, instead of having a right to get that something equally for all and for everybody.
I mean of course theoretically I would have access to get to Harvard, but practically I have not. So, what is that kind of BS language all about?
Your private educational system is betraying you from cradle to coffin.
No mercy.
https://www.euronews.com/live
We do need to be more like Germany or even Finland
I think they pay you to go to college in Finland.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Hi, DO! Wanted to says 'thanks'
for posting this info as a standalone essay.
Unfortunately, we have a very, very early morning due to travel, so, I'll need to drop back much later today, in order to add a blurb/excerpt from Rep Higgins' toxic Medicare "Buy-In" Bill. (Same bill one of your Tweets refers to.) It's the portion of the bill that I've previously mentioned--the section that actually calls for the Comptroller General of the US to appoint a Committee for the purpose of reforming the Medicare health care delivery system, and to "reduce the cost of care."
Yeah--I bet it does!
Later.
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Can't we just look forward to MFA without all the naysaying
If we vote for representatives like AOC we will get something closer to the MFA we want. Stop acting helpless. We do have rights that people in many places now and before did not have. Don't give them up by apathy and anger towards some nebulous establishment monster.
Beware the bullshit factories.
"something closer" you say?
Would that be something like... say... the affordable care act? Yeah, thanks but no.
I agree, we need about another 300 AOC's in congress. Until that happens though, it's going to be a steady neoliberal gruel for us, you can count on it.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
DO, Chuckie Schumer agrees with you--
From MTP, Dec 16, 2018,
For the Political Elites/One Percent, any "reform" is all about one thing--saving money. That's the one thing that all of them agree upon. (Ironically, that happens to be one of the major selling points of a single-payer system.)
My objection to that line of thinking is that instead of "saving money" by designing a healthcare system that denies folks healthcare--through so-called "managed care" and rationing of healthcare service--why not re-prioritize the nation's (budgetary) objectives? IOW, get out of the business of militarism/empire building, like all the other western countries. That's the reason that they are able to provide their citizens with decent healthcare. IMO, until that happens, any so-called healthcare "reform" is going to basically be designed to cut costs--under the guise of 'reform.'
After listening to Chuckie, this morning, I'd say that any talk of MFA (by Dem lawmakers) is simply a combination of ruse/bait aimed at the Party Base, in an attempt to garner votes in 2020, and beyond. Schumer pretty much confirmed that--I'll post more of the MTP transcript, down thread.
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
[2nd Edit] Higgins' "Buy-In" proposal is detrimental to Medigap
or Medicare Supplement policies, from what I've read.
Running out of time to post, so, will post the blurb about the US Comptroller General so-called Commission, later. Wanted to mention that I looked at a detailed summary of Higgins' proposal earlier today, and it reminded me that he's going to ask insurance industry to "revamp Medigap policies."
Long story short, since his proposed 'Buy-In' Bill is bought on the ACA Exchange--and, is an annual contract, so that very ill folks can come in shop/move annually--it would seem that allowing 'Buy-In' enrollees to purchase Medigap insurance, will cause Medigap monthly premiums to skyrocket.
Currently, there's only a 6-month window (called the "Initial Enrollment Period") during which individuals are allowed to enroll in one of these policies (aside from transferring between Medigap plans, and that's only possible for very healthy beneficiaries). This policy stabilizes the plans (for insurers), therefore, it helps keep monthly premiums reasonably priced.
From the language of his Bill, if it passes, it's only logical that Medigap insurers will greatly increase premiums for everyone, in order to offset the cost of very ill folks who switch over to this [Buy-In] system, from their employer-sponsored health plans. (unless, the pool of over age 65 enrollees, and age 50-64 enrollees are kept separate--which is not made clear)
More on this topic, later.
Here's another excerpt from Chuckie's interview, from earlier today on MTP,
[2nd correction - typos.]
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.