Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all'

[DKW 86 7,419]

 

Quote

 

Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all'

A vast majority — 70 percent — of Americans in a new poll supports "Medicare for all," also known as a single-payer health-care system.

The Reuters–Ipsos survey found 85 percent of Democrats said they support the policy along with 52 percent of Republicans.

Medicare for all has been in the headlines after a study by the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University found it would lead to $32.6 trillion increase in federal spending over a 10-year period.

The study’s author, Charles Blahous, wrote in The Wall Street Journalearlier this month that even doubling taxes would not cover the bill for a single-payer health-care system.

The policy’s proponents, however, point to a note in the study showing that health-care costs would also decrease by $2 trillion by 2031 if it became law.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has introduced a Medicare for all bill, has said that the Mercatus study is “grossly misleading and biased.”

The new Reuters poll also showed that a majority of Americans supports free college tuition. Forty-one percent of Republicans said they supported the policy, pollsters found, compared with 79 percent of Democrats

 

.Many of you know, i worked a second job while my daughter was in college. I worked with a Fortune 500 Company retailer that sold auto parts.

Short version is this. I have friends and coworkers I dearly love in that business. Their health care was basically "Go to the Hospital = File Bankruptcy." Now we (my family and i) are blessed with pretty good, not great Healthcare in my IT Role. But at this retailer...well it was brutal. These are salt of the earth middle class folks, you know, just like the ones that probably raised all of us. Why cant they have decent affordable healthcare? We are already making insurance companies very very wealthy. Insurance, banking, energy are all just about as solid money makers as you can get. In total, I think we can get to a minimal level (entry level) single-payer system. I would add extra options for $$$ for better service for my family., etc.

I dont care what the RWHMs say. We can do this. We should do this. We are supposed to do this. Look, i was raised thinking that you need to earn it all, well, in 21st Century America, you cant earn it all anymore. We are in a transition where our middle class wages have become stagnant as we have to compete more and more globally. I dont want o hear what the RWHM Scare Brigade has manu-manipulated for RWHM Consumption. We need to do this. 

You know, I know that not all of this audience is Christian, but this is a Christian imperative. You either "take care of the least of these" or you are not following your bible.

[homersapien 11,357]

It's definitely a moral issue but it's also just common sense.  Most people who desperately need healthcare wind up getting it at some point, even if they cannot pay.  Only it's too late for their problems to be headed off or treated efficiently.  The additional costs are simply passed along to those who can pay.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Would rather pay the ton I give to insurance companies for actual healthcare.

[AU64 10,122]

Y'all do know that much of Medicare is handled through insurance companies and that Medicare does not come close to covering all hospital or doctor costs that  person might incur.?  

You can hate the insurance companies, but someone has to review the claims,  process the paperwork, write the checks, etc..  Insurance companies for the most part are just contractors use by the government to handle the administrative work and try to keep the system reasonably honest.    An older piece but still relevant...

https://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/how-big-is-medicare-fraud/

I am pretty sure a private company / companies would figure out how to get that under control. 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 8/24/2018 at 7:53 AM, DKW 86 said:

 

.Many of you know, i worked a second job while my daughter was in college. I worked with a Fortune 500 Company retailer that sold auto parts.

Short version is this. I have friends and coworkers I dearly love in that business. Their health care was basically "Go to the Hospital = File Bankruptcy." Now we (my family and i) are blessed with pretty good, not great Healthcare in my IT Role. But at this retailer...well it was brutal. These are salt of the earth middle class folks, you know, just like the ones that probably raised all of us. Why cant they have decent affordable healthcare? We are already making insurance companies very very wealthy. Insurance, banking, energy are all just about as solid money makers as you can get. In total, I think we can get to a minimal level (entry level) single-payer system. I would add extra options for $$$ for better service for my family., etc.

I dont care what the RWHMs say. We can do this. We should do this. We are supposed to do this. Look, i was raised thinking that you need to earn it all, well, in 21st Century America, you cant earn it all anymore. We are in a transition where our middle class wages have become stagnant as we have to compete more and more globally. I dont want o hear what the RWHM Scare Brigade has manu-manipulated for RWHM Consumption. We need to do this. 

You know, I know that not all of this audience is Christian, but this is a Christian imperative. You either "take care of the least of these" or you are not following your bible.

I am all for making healthcare affordable, but it is crazy to expect our government to do it. It is the fox guarding the hen house. They don't even talk about lowering the cost of healthcare, they just keep talking about insurance.

Regarding the Christian imperative I COMPLETELY agree with you that as a Christian I am commanded to "take care of the least of these." But I don't see how that applies to what the government should do. Are you suggesting that we should have a Christian government? That would be a mistake.

[creed 1,635]

18 hours ago, AU64 said:

Y'all do know that much of Medicare is handled through insurance companies and that Medicare does not come close to covering all hospital or doctor costs that  person might incur.?  

You can hate the insurance companies, but someone has to review the claims,  process the paperwork, write the checks, etc..  Insurance companies for the most part are just contractors use by the government to handle the administrative work and try to keep the system reasonably honest.    An older piece but still relevant...

https://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/how-big-is-medicare-fraud/

I am pretty sure a private company / companies would figure out how to get that under control. 

It would be interesting to understand the total annual profit made by all the health  insurance companies. And if the profit were returned back into health system how much more additional care or reduced premiums could be experienced. Bottom line, I have a hard time with an insurance company profiting off my health and I would be interested in hearing more about a non-profit single payer system.

[AU64 10,122]

43 minutes ago, creed said:

It would be interesting to understand the total annual profit made by all the health  insurance companies. And if the profit were returned back into health system how much more additional care or reduced premiums could be experienced. Bottom line, I have a hard time with an insurance company profiting off my health and I would be interested in hearing more about a non-profit single payer system.

JMO but insurance companies profit from keeping you healthy....as do lots of business enterprises that make the technologies used in treatment of patients, etc. .   Remove the profit motive from any business and the incentive for quality and creativity is about done with. 

None the less, someone has to administer the process and as I noted, even the government depends on insurance companies to do the paperwork, etc.    If not the insurance companies doing this, the government would have to hire some unknown number of people to do pretty much the same work.  I am on Medicare Advantage but friends who have traditional Medicate still find it necessary to buy a supplemental plan to cover the sizable cost of stuff that Medicare does not pay.  

The most common misconception about Medicare is that "it pays for all your medical expenses".....which anyone on Medicare can tell you is a big joke.

Saw an CNN piece that the top six companies profited by $6 billion which in the greater scheme of things involving healthcare is mere peanuts.  Total expenditure on health care in the US was recently reported by Forbes at $3.8 TRILLION..... Just the fraud in Medicare is a minimum of ten times what insurance companies make.

 JMO..but insurance companies make a nice target for demagoguing the issue but the financial issues are not gonna be solved by removing them from the picture and I've never seen any responsible argument that costs would be lower if insurance companies were not involved. 

[homersapien 11,357]

19 hours ago, AU64 said:

Y'all do know that much of Medicare is handled through insurance companies and that Medicare does not come close to covering all hospital or doctor costs that  person might incur.?  

You can hate the insurance companies, but someone has to review the claims,  process the paperwork, write the checks, etc..  Insurance companies for the most part are just contractors use by the government to handle the administrative work and try to keep the system reasonably honest.    An older piece but still relevant...

https://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/how-big-is-medicare-fraud/

I am pretty sure a private company / companies would figure out how to get that under control. 

Medicare Part A has much higher Medical Loss Ratio than for-profit insurance companies generally and the ADL act regulates minimum MLR's for companies supplying Medicare supplement insurance.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

58 minutes ago, AU64 said:

JMO but insurance companies profit from keeping you healthy....as do lots of business enterprises that make the technologies used in treatment of patients, etc. .   Remove the profit motive from any business and the incentive for quality and creativity is about done with. 

None the less, someone has to administer the process and as I noted, even the government depends on insurance companies to do the paperwork, etc.    If not the insurance companies doing this, the government would have to hire some unknown number of people to do pretty much the same work.  I am on Medicare Advantage but friends who have traditional Medicate still find it necessary to buy a supplemental plan to cover the sizable cost of stuff that Medicare does not pay.  

The most common misconception about Medicare is that "it pays for all your medical expenses".....which anyone on Medicare can tell you is a big joke.

Saw an CNN piece that the top six companies profited by $6 billion which in the greater scheme of things involving healthcare is mere peanuts.  Total expenditure on health care in the US was recently reported by Forbes at $3.8 TRILLION..... Just the fraud in Medicare is a minimum of ten times what insurance companies make.

 JMO..but insurance companies make a nice target for demagoguing the issue but the financial issues are not gonna be solved by removing them from the picture and I've never seen any responsible argument that costs would be lower if insurance companies were not involved. 

They profit just as much by cherry picking the market and excluding potential customers with pre-existing conditions. There is no incentive for a profit-driven business to include everyone.

[AU64 10,122]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

They profit just as much by cherry picking the market and excluding potential customers with pre-existing conditions. There is no incentive for a profit-driven business to include everyone.

True in the general market but Medicare and Medicaid covers all who qualify by non-medical criteria. ...and by and large the most unhealthy are the elderly and poor.    

And I guess you might be on Medicare....and know what I mean about the level of coverage.  It is not free even to retirees.....and does not cover everything either.  JMO but the biggest benefit is the opportunity to get some medical coverage without having to meet a health qualification ….But even with Medicare we have in the range of $10-12K of deductible medical expenses on our taxes.

My biggest complaint back in the Obamacare days was that the plan basically screwed up everyone's insurance coverage rather than focusing on a solution to  cover the high risk people who had problems getting coverage.  ACA was a covert plan to get everyone on a single payer (government)  system favored by the liberal dems....and was not necessarily trying to find a system to would provide coverage for the uninsured.   Mandating "minimum" types of coverage that included situations that people did not want.  It was an effort to distribute the cost but of courses instead, caused some people to drop coverage all together and just pay the fine. 

BUT....the profits of for-profit companies are still a pittance compared to the total expenditure on health care and have little impact on the cost overall. If you are against profits there, might as well be against profits for automobile companies, or home construction companies.....and on it goes. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

They profit just as much by cherry picking the market and excluding potential customers with pre-existing conditions. There is no incentive for a profit-driven business to include everyone.

 

#WHAT.HE.SAID.

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

True in the general market but Medicare and Medicaid covers all who qualify by non-medical criteria. ...and by and large the most unhealthy are the elderly and poor.    

And I guess you might be on Medicare....and know what I mean about the level of coverage.  It is not free even to retirees.....and does not cover everything either.  JMO but the biggest benefit is the opportunity to get some medical coverage without having to meet a health qualification ….But even with Medicare we have in the range of $10-12K of deductible medical expenses on our taxes.

My biggest complaint back in the Obamacare days was that the plan basically screwed up everyone's insurance coverage rather than focusing on a solution to  cover the high risk people who had problems getting coverage.  ACA was a covert plan to get everyone on a single payer (government)  system favored by the liberal dems....and was not necessarily trying to find a system to would provide coverage for the uninsured.   Mandating "minimum" types of coverage that included situations that people did not want.  It was an effort to distribute the cost but of courses instead, caused some people to drop coverage all together and just pay the fine. 

BUT....the profits of for-profit companies are still a pittance compared to the total expenditure on health care and have little impact on the cost overall. If you are against profits there, might as well be against profits for automobile companies, or home construction companies.....and on it goes. 

7

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Profitability-of-Health-Insurance-Companies.pdf

It may indeed be a "pittance" in the overreaching view of the business making obscene profits idea goes. I assure you, the overwhelming majority of Health Insurers are making scads of money. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 hours ago, Grumps said:

I am all for making healthcare affordable, but it is crazy to expect our government to do it. It is the fox guarding the hen house. They don't even talk about lowering the cost of healthcare, they just keep talking about insurance.

Regarding the Christian imperative I COMPLETELY agree with you that as a Christian I am commanded to "take care of the least of these." But I don't see how that applies to what the government should do. Are you suggesting that we should have a Christian government? That would be a mistake.

The enormity of the problem may well make it a govt project. I cant see any organization of churches being able to cover even a small percentage of it. As Christ implored us, 

Quote

 

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

[AU64 10,122]

23 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Profitability-of-Health-Insurance-Companies.pdf

It may indeed be a "pittance" in the overreaching view of the business making obscene profits idea goes. I assure you, the overwhelming majority of Health Insurers are making scads of money. 

Healthcare ETFs are not doing exceptional....I have them in my IRA but not that great an investment......and....when looking at nearly $4 Trillion per year  if you took all the profits from the health insurance companies you would not even get the first decimal place in additional money.   That is purely a political argument and makes no sense in the way of economics.  And of course you are making the assumption that the government would be as efficient or more so than the private companies and of course what happens to the paper pushers working for Humana and other insurance processors?   I'm just saying that the argument against profits has nothing to do with making more money available for providing services. 

And you do recall that it was the ACA plan to promised to bail out the insurers if they could not cover the cost of covering all of the new customers.  Obama bought the support of the insurers by making that deal.  I don't blame the insurers for taking the offer....who wouldn't ....but I do blame the ACA for setting up a plan that could not be financially viable on its own. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Healthcare ETFs are not doing exceptional....I have them in my IRA but not that great an investment......and....when looking at nearly $4 Trillion per year  if you took all the profits from the health insurance companies you would not even get the first decimal place in additional money.   That is purely a political argument and makes no sense in the way of economics.  And of course you are making the assumption that the government would be as efficient or more so than the private companies and of course what happens to the paper pushers working for Humana and other insurance processors?   I'm just saying that the argument against profits has nothing to do with making more money available for providing services. 

And you do recall that it was the ACA plan to promised to bail out the insurers if they could not cover the cost of covering all of the new customers.  Obama bought the support of the insurers by making that deal.  I don't blame the insurers for taking the offer....who wouldn't ....but I do blame the ACA for setting up a plan that could not be financially viable on its own. 

The ACA is what it is. It was a very bad first step. I think any thinking person can easily see this. It has flaws, holes, etc. But it is doing a lot of what it was touted to do. The issue with the ACA for most people in good jobs was we were told that "if we liked our plan, we could keep our plan." That was a flat-footed, flat-out lie. They mandated new coverages that forced 85-90% of plans in America to go away. Now, any political movement wanting to go forward with this will face years of getting the public over being lied to about this. 

[homersapien 11,357]

16 hours ago, AU64 said:

True in the general market but Medicare and Medicaid covers all who qualify by non-medical criteria. ...and by and large the most unhealthy are the elderly and poor.    

And I guess you might be on Medicare....and know what I mean about the level of coverage.  It is not free even to retirees.....and does not cover everything either.  JMO but the biggest benefit is the opportunity to get some medical coverage without having to meet a health qualification ….But even with Medicare we have in the range of $10-12K of deductible medical expenses on our taxes.

My biggest complaint back in the Obamacare days was that the plan basically screwed up everyone's insurance coverage rather than focusing on a solution to  cover the high risk people who had problems getting coverage.  ACA was a covert plan to get everyone on a single payer (government)  system favored by the liberal dems....and was not necessarily trying to find a system to would provide coverage for the uninsured.   Mandating "minimum" types of coverage that included situations that people did not want.  It was an effort to distribute the cost but of courses instead, caused some people to drop coverage all together and just pay the fine. 

BUT....the profits of for-profit companies are still a pittance compared to the total expenditure on health care and have little impact on the cost overall. If you are against profits there, might as well be against profits for automobile companies, or home construction companies.....and on it goes. 

I am for universal coverage.  It's a basic human right.

While a for-profit system nicely address one's desire for an automobile or a new home, I don't see how they advance the goal of providing healthcare insurance for everyone.  If anything, the profit motive works against that.

[homersapien 11,357]

16 hours ago, AU64 said:

True in the general market but Medicare and Medicaid covers all who qualify by non-medical criteria. ...and by and large the most unhealthy are the elderly and poor.    

And I guess you might be on Medicare....and know what I mean about the level of coverage.  It is not free even to retirees.....and does not cover everything either.  JMO but the biggest benefit is the opportunity to get some medical coverage without having to meet a health qualification ….But even with Medicare we have in the range of $10-12K of deductible medical expenses on our taxes.

My biggest complaint back in the Obamacare days was that the plan basically screwed up everyone's insurance coverage rather than focusing on a solution to  cover the high risk people who had problems getting coverage.  ACA was a covert plan to get everyone on a single payer (government)  system favored by the liberal dems....and was not necessarily trying to find a system to would provide coverage for the uninsured.   Mandating "minimum" types of coverage that included situations that people did not want.  It was an effort to distribute the cost but of courses instead, caused some people to drop coverage all together and just pay the fine. 

BUT....the profits of for-profit companies are still a pittance compared to the total expenditure on health care and have little impact on the cost overall. If you are against profits there, might as well be against profits for automobile companies, or home construction companies.....and on it goes. 

And Obamacare certainly didn't "screw up" my insurance.  In fact, it allowed me to attain insurance after 5 years of going without.

[maxwere 82]

On 8/24/2018 at 7:53 AM, DKW 86 said:

You know, I know that not all of this audience is Christian, but this is a Christian imperative. You either "take care of the least of these" or you are not following your bible.

via the State?  Is Christ preaching to Emperor a/o the Roman governors there?  Is he advocating them forcibly acquiring your (wealthy) neighbors property via tax system?  Certainly not, that would be a violation of at least 4/10 commandments.

Quote

It's definitely a moral issue but it's also just common sense.  Most people who desperately need healthcare wind up getting it at some point, even if they cannot pay.  Only it's too late for their problems to be headed off or treated efficiently.  The additional costs are simply passed along to those who can pay.

Homer, I agree with you.  Welfare, education and finance ARE moral issues.  That's why I take such an exception to the federal government monopolizing them.  Why should they decide your morality?

Friends, its the free market that will free you from price tyranny.  Circumvent the healthcare industrial complex where you can.

I doubt the headline here.  On the other hand, I can believe 70% of Americans have less than a 3rd grade understanding of government finance and economics.  Split the difference and its scary.

[homersapien 11,357]

35 minutes ago, maxwere said:

via the State?  Is Christ preaching to Emperor a/o the Roman governors there?  Is he advocating them forcibly acquiring your (wealthy) neighbors property via tax system?  Certainly not, that would be a violation of at least 4/10 commandments.

Homer, I agree with you.  Welfare, education and finance ARE moral issues.  That's why I take such an exception to the federal government monopolizing them.  Why should they decide your morality?

Friends, its the free market that will free you from price tyranny.  Circumvent the healthcare industrial complex where you can.

I doubt the headline here.  On the other hand, I can believe 70% of Americans have less than a 3rd grade understanding of government finance and economics.  Split the difference and its scary.

You sound as if you see the Federal Government is an independent entity when it's representative of our collective values. 

 

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

1 hour ago, maxwere said:

via the State?  Is Christ preaching to Emperor a/o the Roman governors there?  Is he advocating them forcibly acquiring your (wealthy) neighbors property via tax system?  Certainly not, that would be a violation of at least 4/10 commandments.

Homer, I agree with you.  Welfare, education and finance ARE moral issues.  That's why I take such an exception to the federal government monopolizing them.  Why should they decide your morality?

Friends, its the free market that will free you from price tyranny.  Circumvent the healthcare industrial complex where you can.

I doubt the headline here.  On the other hand, I can believe 70% of Americans have less than a 3rd grade understanding of government finance and economics.  Split the difference and its scary.

Hear, hear.  I would much rather deal with a "for-profit" insurance company that has to COMPETE for my business  and consequently, has to treat me as a paying customer who's free to walk out the door and take my business elsewhere, than to deal with a soulless DMV-type monopoly/bureaucracy that couldn't care less about me except for the paper number ticket I'm holding when I approach the counter -- and knows I CAN'T go anywhere else.  

Bernie Sanders and his ilk are economic buffoons.  Nothing is free and never will be no matter how much they desire it to be so. 

[maxwere 82]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

They profit just as much by cherry picking the market and excluding potential customers with pre-existing conditions. There is no incentive for a profit-driven business to include everyone.

Is this not true for all private business?  The one who caters to all succeeds at none.  Specialization increases efficiency.

Quote

While a for-profit system nicely address one's desire for an automobile or a new home, I don't see how they advance the goal of providing healthcare insurance for everyone.  If anything, the profit motive works against that.

Homer, I think you are basing this on your experience with a third party system that originated with the 1942 stabilization act to prevent wage increases (another notorious attempt to control prices).  Employers we're allowed to use a tax subsidized benefits to attract labor.  That's the crux of the system we have today.  Eliminate group benefits in favor of individual major medical programs (no caps).  Pay for routine work out of pocket or via discount memberships and we're all richer.  Cut all of the liability, cost redistribution, entitlement crap and a bandaid cost $.10 again.  $10 for a shot.  $50 imaging procedures.  Preventative care could conceivably roll into something like a gym membership.  Allow secure record keeping innovations with block chain.  Transparent competitive pricing...  so on and so on.  Total outlays would be 80% less***.  Health insurance would be just that, insurance and very profitable (for all parties).  Insurers could highly specialize in major med, stop loss or routine discounts.  Have some imagination America!

*** administration, tort, type 2 diabetes and heart disease (preventable conditions, mostly the result of lifestyle) make up ~75% of health care costs (yes there is some overlap).

I feel for all of you with respect to the ridiculous system and these prices.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Some of you act as if the Free Market was created Yesterday. As far as I know, we have had "free markets for likely a hundred years. If they were going to develop and compete to insure the elderly and to insure the poor where was that happening? I dont see it. There holes in the "Market Model" that never been, nor will ever be, covered by a free market answer. You say I dont understand Markets and the free market concept. I know I do. I have been in business for myself. One of my degrees is in Economics. I have also gotten older and more mellow in my old age. I now freely admit that some of the religious style dogma I learned in my earlier years just doesnt have real-world translations. 

We cannot stand back and talk about what is just plainly not happening in the world around us. Theories do not equal real-world realities. 

I am a veteran. I know full well the garbage the VA is corrupted with. But corruption is whole other issue. Do we have corruption in the Miltary Budgeting Process? Oh hell yes! Do we stop buying military hardware? NO! Same applies to healthcare. Will we have corruption and issues in a single payer system? Yes!  We still need to buy it tho.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, AUloggerhead said:

Hear, hear.  I would much rather deal with a "for-profit" insurance company that has to COMPETE for my business  and consequently, has to treat me as a paying customer who's free to walk out the door and take my business elsewhere, than to deal with a soulless DMV-type monopoly/bureaucracy that couldn't care less about me except for the paper number ticket I'm holding when I approach the counter -- and knows I CAN'T go anywhere else.  

Bernie Sanders and his ilk are economic buffoons.  Nothing is free and never will be no matter how much they desire it to be so. 

That is a totally invalid analogy.  First, it assumes you represent a money making opportunity.  But what if you don't?  What if you are older, or have a pre-existing condition?

You won't have anyone competing for your business, you'll have everyone turning your business down with no where else to go.  Trust me, I've been there.

 

[AU64 10,122]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

you sound as if you see the Federal Government is an independent entity when it's representative of our collective values

supposed to do those things.....but of course determining what are "collective values".....that's usually done by vocal and well financed special interest groups who take it on themselves to decide what is good for everyone. 

And where, or when or how did health care become a "right" ? just curious?