Home | About | Donate

Upside of Trumpcare Ugliness: Medicare For All Goes From 'Pie in the Sky' to 'Inevitable'


#21

I don't see single-payer ever getting into law because Republicans supporters are completely opposed since it involves big government and it is easy for industry to scare off the public with various claims such as healthcare will rationed.


#22

"Medicare For All Goes From 'Pie in the Sky' to 'Inevitable'" GUFFAW! Not as long as the Republicans control the government, and considering voting law manipulation by Republican governments in a majority of states, Republican control of government appears unending. So, give up on "Medicare For All".


#23

Really, it's 2017 and we still don't have universal health care/coverage???!!! What the hell does it take, a bloody revolution, an alien invasion? Previous to the ACA, we had almost 50 millions uninsured, after the ACA was enacted we had about 30 million uninsured, still unacceptable. Now the GOP wants to head in the wrong direction, with 50 or more millions uninsured. The rest of the wealthy industrialized democracies have some form of universal health care, no one goes bankrupt from medical costs and drugs cost a fraction of what they cost in the US. In the US, 50% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs and drugs cost obscene amounts of money. The medical/insurance industrial complex is in full control with lots of air support from filthy libertarians and Ayn Randians and all their effing "think" tanks.


#24

You forgot to add that many people on Medicare supplement it with private insurance because Medicare only pays 80% of physician fees. Also, you forgot to add that many people on Medicare pay for private insurance to cover drug costs. Therefore, for people over 65 it is very typical to have a combination of government insurance and private healthcare insurance. I think Medicare is the most helpful when it come to hospital bills. Then it pays 100% and there is no premium for Medicare part A.


#25

And yes .. there are a horde of insurance companies hawking supplemental plans.
A nation-wide single payer plan could take their place too.
And granting the govt the ability to negotiate drug prices (as the VA does) would be a big savings too.


#26

It's not that the people don't want it, it's that the insurance oligarchs won't allow it.


#27

Neither will the for-profit hospitals, which are buying up medical practices and, then, jacking prices.

Case in point. My PCP used to charge around $185 for an appointment with yearly physical. Out of that, a portion of this $185 went to pay office space rent to a local hospital that owned the office building.

Then, the local hospital offered to purchase his practice (there were a few other physicians in this practice), with the agreement that they would pay him and the other physicians in the practice more than they were currently making. Plus, they'd no longer have to deal with patient billing.

Now that the hospital owns the practice, the hospital charges around $230 for the PCP appointment with yearly physical. Plus, there's now a variable "hospital facility charge", anywhere from $165 to $220 for seeing the PCP at the hospital's facility, just like there is if one goes to a hospital's emergency room.

And, although, in my opinion, this is one big scam, apparently, this is all okay with Medicare; because, they are paying most of the increase, while charging me more than I used to pay.

Needless to say, I'm down on both medical insurance companies and hospital-owned physician practices.


#28

I have been on Medicare for 7 years. I have a supplement insurance for $200 a month that pays for Rx and the 10% portion that Medicare doesn't cover. I can go to any doctor I choose without referral.
I have no complaints. Perhaps the problem you are seeing is the Medicare Advantage plans that were created by the Republican congress in 2004 & 5. Those are the ones that are owned and run by for profit insurance companies. They are the ones who have the "Death Panels" and deny coverage. The Republican congress also created the drug insurance business at the same time and did not require that Medicare would negotiate the drug prices like they do for the veterans. There is a big difference. The Advantage plans are also subsidized by Medicare to the tune of $700 a month to the for profit insurance companies whether the enrolled person sees a doctor or uses any service provider. It is the republican way to bankrupt the Medicare.gov and bankroll the insurance companies. They entice people to enroll in them by offering lower monthly premiums. Surprise, surprise, when the people learn that they are not even enrolled in Medicare. It's a scam.


#29

Just do it already!


#30

Well said, Space_cadet!

Support for Medicare for All is a measure of an office holder's commitment to democracy.


#31

Ya gotta respect the insurance industry. The same way one must respect great white sharks when one is swimming.
The bastards (insurance companies, not sharks) are pure evil but you have to admit they are are brilliant at what they do.

Many years ago when I was much less aware of how the world worked, I would joke about how nice it would be to be able to make laws that would force people to give me money.

And then I learned how the insurance industry worked. What they can't convince you buy out of fear mongering, they just bribe politicians into making the government force it down our throats.

Talk to you later, I've got to buy some insurance stock.


#32

raydelcamino, you've touched on something that seems to be ignored in most discussions. Medicare doesn't involve insurance companies, does it? I've been on Medicare for nine years and not paid anything to a private insurance company. However, I'm aware of paying over $100 per month out of my social security benefits for Medicare coverage, and evidently that could go up under certain "plans" associated with Medicare. Are those plans funded by private insurance? I haven't found it necessary to sign up for any. There are small payments I must make if I go to a doctor -- nowhere near what people younger than me pay.

If someone in their 70's can get adequate health coverage so cheaply, surely those under 65 can. As indicated by the Obama quote, the reason we don't have Medicare for all is to preserve insurance company profits.


#33

Amen - the idea that this was made popular by Sanders makes me want to toss my lunch (as soon as i eat it ..)


#34

HR676 - "the gold standard" for SP


#35

Go to the PNHP website ...


#36

Oh, by and large they don't come out and say they "oppose" it - at least on the D side - what they do instead, as O did in '08 on and as folks like Sanders are doing now is saying - Yeah, we like it - but not right now, first we gotta yadda, yadda, yadda " and there is always more "yadda"


#37

You have a point - Sanders SP plan introduced a number of years ago (and then abandoned) was full of holes'

Conyers bill, HR676. Improved Medicare for All - is considered the "gold standard" for SP - so why haven't all these D Senators who "love" SP slapped a Sen #on it and introduced it in the Sen?

Indeed we do need to replace ALL the D/Rs with indy non-corp party folks, so let's get crackin'! ...


#38

When we are dead last in the race for decent healthcare we have no where else to go but up. :smile:


#39

Yoo-hoo - have you read HR676 - Imptoved Medicare for All - which is what honest supporters of SP are pushing ....

Even as it is it is a damn site better than the private insurance plans - and you are not "forced to sign up" .... Ask folks who are familiar with both which they prefer ....


#40

With Improved Medicare for All - you don't need Medicaid ....