Healthcare Reform

[commando]

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

Not true.

 

There are Dems who are not on board.  At least three from Tuesday's debate.

that means 7 of them were for medicare for all.   how many were for expanding healthcare and how many were for getting rid of healthcare?

 

and really...i think the dem race is between sanders, biden, and warren.   everyone else is basically out of it in my opinion.  although i hear 7 candidates have secured a spot in their next debate.   and damn...i will be glad to see them cull the heard a bit at this point.

[commando]

30 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

We should all be fine with this discussion of improving healthcare access and constraining costs. We likely need more government intervention. But how much? Do we take a more drastic approach and completely overhaul the system or do we keep working to improve the current framework? It's healthy to have this discussion and it will yield changes that lead to a better system.

 

The problem is the discussion is only happening within one party. Republicans still want to tell everyone how socialist the ACA is and are STILL trying to hatchet it in the courts after failing to undo it in Congress.

 

It's damn near impossible to move forward when one party flat out wants to restrict access to healthcare and turn a blind eye to the root cause of rising costs. We don't share the same fundamental goals in "reforming" healthcare.

when they talk about cutting spending....food stamps, medicare and social security are what they are really talking about.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

Not true.

 

There are Dems who are not on board.  At least three from Tuesday's debate.

I'd be surprised if either of them make the nomination.

[Ratt Mhule]

40 minutes ago, commando said:

that means 7 of them were for medicare for all.   how many were for expanding healthcare and how many were for getting rid of healthcare?

 

and really...i think the dem race is between sanders, biden, and warren.   everyone else is basically out of it in my opinion.  although i hear 7 candidates have secured a spot in their next debate.   and damn...i will be glad to see them cull the heard a bit at this point.

 

Medicare for America, medicare for all who want it and public option are not medicare for all.  Only two people want Bernies and Jayapals bill and that's Bernie and maybe Warren.

[RedDenver]

On 8/1/2019 at 7:20 AM, Moiraine said:

Just some thoughts on MFA.

 

Medicare is used by 15% of the population, and it's used for the least healthy part of the population in general since it's for old people and people with disabilities.

 

But let's pretend the rest of the population would cost just as much $; that means after dealing with the implementation costs, it'd be around 6.7 times more expensive than what we're paying now. Right now Medicare is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer. People making over $200,000 also pay another 0.9%.

 

Median household income is ~$60,000 and people making that much are currently paying $870 per year. If they kept allocating it the way they do, that would increase to $5,803, or $484 per month, and health care costs would go down a lot (there are still some things not covered by Medicare - maybe those could be covered by MFA since the average person on MFA would be cheaper than the average person on Medicare right now). But if employers are no longer paying for expensive health insurance, I think they could afford to pay more than half of the 2.9%. I think they could pay more than half and it would still be cheaper to them. Unless of course they aren't currently providing health insurance. They could also do it by tax bracket; which in this case would make a lot of sense since people make more money as they age, and need more health care as they age.

 

I probably wasted my time thinking about this because I'm guessing someone's assessed it online already and thought of way more things than I did.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is I think the prices would be forced to come down if we got rid of health insurance, so it might not be necessary to pay as much as I've stated above.

And you're only looking at premiums and leaving out some of the major costs of the for-profit insurance model: copays, deductibles, overages, and cost-splitting. Every study I've seen has M4A saving $2-$6 trillion (with a T) over a decade compared to the current system.

[NM11046]

On 8/1/2019 at 12:18 PM, TheSker said:

Not true.

 

There are Dems who are not on board.  At least three from Tuesday's debate.

If memory serves, those three will not be around for the next debate.  All the top 5-7 are for medicare with variations depending on their policy.

[RedDenver]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[TheSker]

5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

I think this is giving Bernie quite a bit too much credit.

 

Bernie knows his bill.  And at this point, that's all it is.  And the party he is seeking the nomination for isn't sold on it.

 

Cheaper isn't always better.

 

But by all means let's completely villainize our health care system.  It has it's issues.  

 

But when the federal and state government are running the health care show.......yikes.

[Ratt Mhule]

2 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I think this is giving Bernie quite a bit too much credit.

 

Bernie knows his bill.  And at this point, that's all it is.  And the party he is seeking the nomination for isn't sold on it.

 

Cheaper isn't always better.

 

But by all means let's completely villainize our health care system.  It has it's issues.  

 

But when the federal and state government are running the health care show.......yikes.

 

MFA is more like the Canadian system and less like the English system and the VA. Private doctors make the decisions, the govt. pays. 

[TheSker]

Just now, Frott Scost said:

 

MFA is more like the Canadian system and less like the English system and the VA. Private doctors make the decisions, the govt. pays. 

I understand that.

 

"the govt. pays" part is the problem.

[funhusker]

To business owners and/or managers on the board who offer insurance to employees: how would it effect your businesses if people had insurance through govt instead of employee insurance benefits?

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, TheSker said:

I understand that.

 

"the govt. pays" part is the problem.

 

Please explain

[TheSker]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

To business owners and/or managers on the board who offer insurance to employees: how would it effect your businesses if people had insurance through govt instead of employee insurance benefits?

One of the issues is it's not clear how Bernie's plan would be paid for.  And the figures offer a lot of savings assumptions that may prove not to be accurate.