Do Democrats Know How Radical Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare For All' Plan Is?

[ProVobis]

I believe they still use some form of the exchanges, which Republicans seem to have issue with.

I guess they prefer the higher premiums due to commissions paid the salesmen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But the exemption of pre-existing conditions is the primary thing that made rates jump and that simply isn’t going anywhere. I read somewhere recently that almost 70% of reps 80% of indies and almost 90% of dems support it. That is a good thing as it means care for people who needed it and weren’t getting it.

Wonder how many of those people know that coverage of pre-existing conditions is required in any ERISA qualified group plan, which is nearly all of them.

So what we’re really talking about in those with disqualifying pre-existing conditions are those who are not employed by an employer with a group plan, who do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare and who can’t afford coverage under any plan, including state plans. I have not seen the numbers on that, but I doubt it’s very many people. The congress could provide funds to supplement state plans for that without redoing the whole system.

 

[ProVobis]

As I saw it, pre-existing conditions became a problem as many were being laid off and COBRA only took them to 18 months. One of the remedies was the high-risk pool where there was a waiting period. I was in one of those for 20 months and plain and simple, it stunk. Too bad the ACA didn’t kick in until 2014.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

But the exemption of pre-existing conditions is the primary thing that made rates jump and that simply isn’t going anywhere. I read somewhere recently that almost 70% of reps 80% of indies and almost 90% of dems support it. That is a good thing as it means care for people who needed it and weren’t getting it.

Wonder how many of those people know that coverage of pre-existing conditions is required in any ERISA qualified group plan, which is nearly all of them.

Are you talking about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974?

Employers learned years ago that you can skirt it by simply not offering plans or providing additional monetary compensation for the employee to independently purchase their own plan. Most removed it from their compensation packages and relied on Medicare to cover you after you retired (in effect, socializing their retirement benefit expenses ).

So what we’re really talking about in those with disqualifying pre-existing conditions are those who are not employed by an employer with a group plan, who do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare and who can’t afford coverage under any plan, including state plans. I have not seen the numbers on that, but I doubt it’s very many people.

The working poor is a pretty sizable group of people. And pretty much all of them are going to develop a chronic condition if they live long enough. Just like you and me.

 

[JimG]

Instead of having people buy expensive individual plans through the ACA website, why not create a new nationwide group plan. Think of all the fast food workers and others being in a group plan. They won’t all have pre-existing conditions, and the premiums ought to be closer to those of other group plans.

 

[Inisfallen]

Instead of having people buy expensive individual plans through the ACA website, why not create a new nationwide group plan. Think of all the fast food workers and others being in a group plan. They won’t all have pre-existing conditions, and the premiums ought to be closer to those of other group plans.

Well, yes. Isn’t that what Medicare for all would be? A nationwide group plan?

 

[ProVobis]

It seemed to me that Rand Paul has proposed this idea. But without any guarantees.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Sure about that? Even California couldn’t pass it.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Check out Solidarity HealthShare.

The United States has all kinds of “users groups”.

Why not have something less expensive than ObamaCare? And more responsive. And less bureaucratic.

The reason why we have individual states is so that each can take a localized approach to providing services to citizens.

Each state is supposed to be an experiment.

Localized users groups work extremely well.

No need for a nationalized one size fits all approach to anything.

Certainly not to healthcare and medical financing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Check out Solidarity HealthShare.

The United States has all kinds of “users groups”.

Why not have something less expensive than ObamaCare? And more responsive. And less bureaucratic.

The reason why we have individual states is so that each can take a localized approach to providing services to citizens.

Each state is supposed to be an experiment.

Localized users groups work extremely well.

No need for a nationalized one size fits all approach to anything.

Certainly not to healthcare and medical financing.

Obamacare set up a group of preferred persons who get their health insurance for free or nearly so. It also set up a group who will pay for it by being put into a group that’s not very insurable on its own and adding coverage mandates most people wouldn’t buy if they had the choice. Of course, those who get it free want it to cover as much as possible.

Problem is, once you set up an entitlement, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of it. Since we’re probably stuck with it, it seems to me most people should be allowed out of a system that “taxes” the middle class while pretending that it doesn’t.

Ought to just admit it’s a welfare plan for what seems to me to be about 7 million people or so, and raise taxes on everybody to pay for it. At least it would be an honest approach. Obamacare is profoundly dishonest, as Gruber admitted it was.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Check out Solidarity HealthShare.

The United States has all kinds of “users groups”.

Why not have something less expensive than ObamaCare? And more responsive. And less bureaucratic.

The reason why we have individual states is so that each can take a localized approach to providing services to citizens.

Each state is supposed to be an experiment.

Localized users groups work extremely well.

No need for a nationalized one size fits all approach to anything.

Certainly not to healthcare and medical financing.

Would you propose that the federal government eliminate medicare and allow the states to decide whether or not to provide coverage? One could even direct the medicare tax directly to the states, would that be an improvement?

 

[MonteRCMS]

Why would I propose that?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Because of your claim: “No need for a nationalized one size fits all approach to anything.”

So the question is, why do we need the federal government involved in medicare at all? I mean, we agree that the program violates the constitution. We agree that the payroll tax only covers part A. So why do we need an intrusive federal government healthcare program like medicare?

 

[MonteRCMS]

You don’t.

In fact, originally, even Social Security allowed for competition.

But they made the Feds look bad, so the competition element was eliminated.

Check the Texas plan used in Galveston:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Check it out.

Maybe allow other cities and states to offer a better performing plan for social security.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What you are talking about is social security, not medicare. So am I right in assuming that you agree we have no need for a medicare program?

 

[MonteRCMS]

You assume too much.

[We have known one another way too long.]

 

[stinkcat_14]

The question which you never answered is why do we need medicare. We agree that it is unconsititutional, we agree that it costs $300 billion per year in general tax revenues (i.e. not the payroll tax). You claim to be in favor of small government, yet you support a big government welfare state program. One can wonder why the inconsistency?

 

[JimG]

Just when I’m about to be convinced that single payer (i.e. government payer) system might be a good idea, I come across an article by someone like Pat Conrad MD, who often writes about bureaucratic interference by both insurers and feds, fake quality measures, clueless administrators, and other medical aggravations. It seems that docs can no longer write a straightforward, brief clinical note. It doesn’t satisfy any part of the bureaucracy. His latest piece for the Authentic Medicine Gazette, after a first paragraph rant, starts out like this:

“Often we read in medical journals, vapid lay press feel-goods more fit for “Good Morning America,” or even hear from respected physicians that patients really do trust their doctors, and look to them for advice and reassurance during these pre-single payer times of turbulence.
My only goal here today is to get you Dear Reader to agree with me on a single, simple point: patients do NOT trust their doctors, and never will. Those days are gone.”

But he says a lot more than just whether patients trust their docs. It’s an interesting posting. Number 5 on the most recent Authentic Medicine Gazette blog link.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The answer to your question just hit me now.

The Galveston Plan which is a non-government alternative to Social Security … pays anywhere from 50% more to more than two times more than the Government Social Security.

Sooooo … If Social Security pays $1000 per month, then the Galveston Plan would pay somewhere around $3000 per month … which is MORE than enough to pay for all of Medicare.

NO NEED for a government paid Medicare, if Galveston pays three times as much.

So click on this and scroll down to the table:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Important!!

In fact, here is the key information:

Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return - $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.

Run the numbers yourself.

How much are the monthly charges for Medicare … [AND these would be the GOVERNMENT charges for Medicare … SO THAT NON-GOVERNMENT CHARGES for Medicare would be MUCH less expensive.]

So, hey, Stinkcat … you are a numbers guy … you can run the numbers yourself … of Galveston versus Government Social Security+Medicare A+B+C+D.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The answer to your question just hit me now.

The Galveston Plan which is a non-government alternative to Social Security … pays anywhere from 50% more to more than two times more than the Government Social Security.

It depends, there is less income redistribution going on with the Galveston plan than with Social Security. However, a single earner two parent household will usually do better with Social Security than with the Galveston plan, particularly at lower income levels.

But the real question is, why do we need social security, medicare or the Galveston plan? If you believe in the constitution, freedom and limited government there is no place for any of these programs in the federal government. If you want the big government welfare state, then by all means, support these programs.