Medicare for All

I didn't vote because I don't know.
I do think insurance companies need to be able to make money. I do not believe they should overcharge to get it.
I know that at my district the premiums went up because for every dollar we paid, insurance paid out 2. I get that they needed to raise the rates. They also should lower them when our usage goes down.

Dh has fabulous health insurance that allows us all on it as well. I selfishly do not want our insurance to change. It is affordable and has great coverage.

I voted Medicare for All, because I think that should be the end goal.

In the meantime, we should use the ACA as a foundation to build forward toward that goal, integrating the public option. It will take time to unfuck what health insurance in this country has become (a massive business that operates for profit and not for the well being of literally anyone except CEOs).

This, exactly. How it would best be accomplished I have no idea. But I think this should be the end goal.

I voted to fix the ACA. I have no problem with a public option (as long as there are options) but we need to fix what we have to start with. As someone who has purchased her own insurance for over 20 years and started with a pre-existing condition (a disease I inherited), I have had plenty of experience purchasing insurance prior to and after the ACA. The ACA fixed many issues for me including removing the cap on prescription drugs. My prescription is now available generic but it wasn't for about 15 years so I know what a limit that $2,000 cap could be when you had a prescription over $300 per month. The main thing I like about the ACA is that I get a choice every year what plan I want to go into. Currently I'm in a high deductible plan since I don't have high drug costs at the moment. For years, I was too frightened to raise my deductible because you could go up but you could not go down. Lowering your deductible under the old system meant reapplying for insurance and having to provide all your medical history. There is plenty to be improved but it is a good start and let's not forget how hard it was to even pass that with a Democrat President and control of both houses.

I'm not in favor of Medicare for All because there is no way way our healthcare system will continue to function if hospitals and doctors have to rely on only what medicare will allow for expenses. What they charge is often far too high but what medicare allows is often just a fraction. I've seen the statements from my husbands and my parents supplemental insurer and medicare so I know that many times Medicare is only paying 10-25% of the requested amount. Often this means a surgeon is getting $60 or so for a followup office visit. I've seen hospitals only get $300 or $400 for an hour long MRI. The $4000 or so they requested may be excessive but they aren't going to be able to maintain equipment that costs millions of dollars and the staff needed without better returns.

And Medicare is not free for the recipient. DH is currently at nearly $400 per month for Medicare and his supplement. It pays everything so it is a better deal than private insurance but I can't see the costs being that low and covering everyone. I also think that it doesn't hurt people to pay a co-pay for doctors visits. People say that a single payer system works in other countries but the culture of those countries is often so different. In Europe, many people are clustered in urban areas where they do far more walking. Their relationship with food is far different than ours. Americans aren't always the best at caring for our bodies. High insurance cost isn't the only reason we pay more than any other developed country for our heathcare. We don't often care as much for ourselves as we could.

The biggest reason I'm against it in the campaign is it a losing idea. The only thing that matters is beating Trump. You will not convince enough moderates to vote for a candidate that wants to get rid of their private insurance to defeat Trump.

We need to fix our health care system before we even think about health care for all.

As a mom to 2 medically complex, fragile, special needs kids I see the shit show fuckery known as health care.

You want to know how many times I have had to file state level grievances to get what was MEDICALLY NECESSARY for my children? (9) That is on top of 15 entry level grievances.

How many loop holes I have had to jump through to get a needed referral?

How many hours spent in the ER to have my dying sickly child cared for (28 hours)

Until our health care system is reformed there should be no added weight to an already horrible system because those of us in it will have many more problems getting the care we need.

And if you think the ACA helped with ER wait times, think again.

And we have private paid for through work insurance.

Wait, are you saying that no one else should have access to health care until you get yours?

I'm sure that's not what you're saying.

I'm so very sorry about your medically fragile children. We have that situation in my extended family as well. Might I suggest that the for-profit nature of your insurance and the medical facilities have exacerbated your problem? And that a non-profit solution might ensure that you get what you need without having to fight for it?

Insurance companies exist to take your premiums and give you as little benefit as possible. It's the only way they make a profit.

Regardless, you have my complete sympathy.

I don’t even know how we can realistically convert all privately-insured and uninsured people to Medicare. As it is, seniors like myself who are on Medicare have to purchase supplementary insurance – Medigap (through private insurers) – to cover those expenses not paid by Medicare. The alternative, Medicare Advantage, is private insurance. Medicare also does not cover long-term care in nursing home or assisted living facilities, easily the most expensive of all. There is no cap on out-of-pocket costs so if you’re in poor health, those costs can be staggering. Prescription drugs are under Medicare Part D and they’re run by private insurers. We can’t even control prescription costs. So, if Medicare as is, is not sufficient to cover all costs, how will we do it for everybody? If the goal is to put everyone on Medicare, then we first have to figure out how to fix it before putting everybody on it.

I have a child that has a lot of medical needs. He is covered under my husbands insurance.

Here in PA with a qualifying diagnosis they are eligible for Medicaid and parents income isn’t considered. My son has a TBI,CP and Epilepsy.

Everything is covered , surprisingly I have not had to fight for anything or has any issues.

I realize how fortunate we are, I really do.

Does your state have a waiver program to help out with secondary insurance? It’s hard enough to take care of a sick child and then have to worry about expenses.

Heather

This is what I aways think when these discussions come up. People say they don't want to pay higher taxes but they're apparently happy to get into massive debt or go bankrupt if they break their leg or suffer kidney failure or some such. I don't get it.

P.S. The UK standard tax rate is 20%, 40% for higher earners.

I don’t know the answer (other than I agree something has to change, what we have now is it working) but I am curious about something....Not all doctors accept all Medicare patients. They usually have a number or percentage of Medicare (and medicaid) clients, when you call a doctor and ask if they’re accepting new patients before they answer they’ll ask what your insurance is. This is, at least in part there may be other factors, due to the low Medicare reimbursement rate. If all patients are Medicare then that would significantly impact the doctor/office income. They still have expenses, not the least of which is malpractice insurance.

My question is, in these other countries with universal health are medical malpractice lawsuits as frequent and high paying as in the US? A quick google search came back without much data, if I have a chance later I may look into it more but I’m curious from our global peas what their thoughts are.

lizacreates - you can find stats here on federal AGI rates and total cumulative income by group. You can't get there with a 70% tax rate on the top 5% - they currently have a total AGI of $3.5 trillion. 70% would be 2.45 - but you need to account for the .8 trillion they already pay. So would only raise an additional $1.6 trillion. And that does not assume any change in income recognition (which with a 70% rate you would need to assume a change in reported income).


taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

And to get a sense of payroll taxes- the current total amount raised is $1.1 trillion - so you could theoretically triple it to raise an additional $2.2 - but as that's a regressive tax, that's never going to fly.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-major-federal-payroll-taxes-and-how-much-money-do-they-raise

How much is spent on healthcare premiums currently?