I am for medicaid for all

for prescriptions, etc.

I think you mean Medicare. Helps to use the correct terminology. And if you’re not going to use the correct terminology, at least spell it correctly.

what it is in US. Please don't spout false right-wing talking points.

100% of the working public pays into Medicare to support that program. To support 100% of the population would mean a five-fold increase in the taxes from what people currently pay.

Add to that, every Medicare recepient pays a monthly premium of $135 to pay for Part B. That doesn’t include prescription drugs or catastrophic insurance. For that, you need supplemental plans that you pay out of your pocket. The same would be true for 100% of the population in any Medicare-for-all plan IF you want that plan to keep the same level of care.

Now, if you want to say no premiums, etc, you need to get the money from somewhere else. If yoy’re not going to have people paying out of pocket as they currently do, then you need to raise taxes to pay for the program. And when you start adding it all up, you get to around 40%.

By the way, I don't recall hearing any similar calls for austerity when the boys' club gave themselves that little prezzie. You?

It is very simple. Americans already pay more than the UK in taxes for healthcare, plus they then have to buy insurance, pay co-pays and deductibles, sometimes they have to lose their house or decide between paying the mortgage or having healthcare.

People in UK don't have to do that. Healthcare outcomes, infant mortality rates and life expectancy are all better in the UK.

Scrap insurance, which is a scam, socialize the whole system, drive pricing down and take the best lessons from other nations, and provide healthcare for all for a much lower cost. It doesn't matter if it is called Medicare or Medicaid. It is the right thing to do, and would save America trillions of dollars.

And please stop repeating right-wing falsehoods.

We are already paying for Medicaid, so those funds would go towards Medicare for all. Also, the people being covered would generally be younger and healthier than those currently covered by Medicare - seniors and the disabled.

What I've seen suggested is that MFA would be funded by additional payroll taxes paid by employees and employers rather than the premiums that are currently paid to health insurance companies. For about 95% of the population, their total healthcare costs would go down and EVERYONE would be covered.

etc.

I think we have a lot of built in costs here that are going to be difficult to cut out, at least short-term, although they should be. It's not just doctors. Our nurses make 40-50% more than UK nurses. Who is going to tell them they are going to get a pay cut, or have to do a lot more for same pay?

We need to restructure our healthcare system -- as well as patient expectations -- but that ain't going to happen overnight.

I often think we'd be better off if we lost the Revolutionary War and were still part of UK, better healthcare, better welfare, less guns, slavery would have been abolished sooner, etc.

Sure, we can cut CEO's pay. That'll make about 0.0002% difference in what we spend on healthcare. We can cut drug prices in half, but then drugs are less than 10% of healthcare expenditures and drugs like that for Hep C probably save us a lot more in inpatient and chronic health care than the treatment costs.

If the government were willing to come up with the upfront money to set up systems for controlling healthcare costs and improving outcomes, they could take that over from private insurers. We'd say 6% - 8% by cutting them out. If we could do that overnight, our premiums might go from $700/month to $644/month. Somehow that is not a life-altering savings.

Of course, those private insurers currently handle most of Medicare administration from adjudicating claims, answering beneficiary questions, credentialing providers, trying to prevent fraudulent providers (and there are a bunch of them), etc.

It really is more complicated than we think. Whatever, it's darn sure time to start working on rationalizing the system and figuring out how to cover everyone. But it's not going to change any time soon. We need to cover everyone and that means increasing taxes, including a lot of people in the so-called middle class.

planet, healthcare becomes a basic human right for all.

Let's be clear. If we can have an army for all, a navy for all, an air force and coast guard for all, a post office for all, national parks for all, an instate highway for all, then we can damn well have medicare for all, and at a lot cheaper cost than what we have now. If that means cutting the military budget and raising taxes on rich people, OK by me.

and let's be clear about the GOP argument that there will be long waiting times to see a Dr. The only reason that there's aren't enough Drs is because we don't educate and graduate enough of them. Also the AMA wants to keep the number of graduating DRs low to ensure that practicing Dr can keep their a steady supply of patients high and their fees high.

And what value exactly do insurance companies add to the mix, except to skim off fees.
So bullshit on all the arguments about why medicare for all is impossible.

Yes it's socialized medicine. So what?

it was about what you meant,Medicaid or Medicare--------big difference.

I would prefer that over medicare for all.

I've seen virtually no one suggest using the Medicaid model, which really sucks, frankly.

are the most efficient and have been for decades of any other Federal program, much less private insurance comparisons.

My point is that I think the OP is confusing the advocates who want a single payment plan and confusing Medicaid with Medicare. I've yet to hear any politician advocating "Medicaid for all".

You pay premiums. And you are required to pay for drug coverage or you are fined some amount for the rest of your life...many of these drug programs are shitty. Also, half the people in this country have work place insurance and when told they would give up their coverage...less than 40% still supported Medicare for all. It will be a loser for Democrats who will be branded as taking away insurance from those with workplace insurance. And there will be questions on how high taxes will go and who will pay those taxes. Stick with the ACA and offer a public option...Medicare for all may come or it may be some other universal coverage...don't care as long as everyone is covered.

want to give up their employer insurance would ever want to switch to Medicaid?

state by state and consider those states that now have work requirements...and have lowered the amount you can have in terms of income...if my sis in law didn't live with us, she would starve...a public option for those who want one is the way to go.

Not necessarily for everone, but for everyone without affordable health care. It is already law and could have been amended to include a larger portion of the population with low incomes. Also, lower the age of eligible medicare recipients to something like 55 and raise taxes accordingly.

The original law required all states to participate in the so-called 'expansion' program. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court struck that part of the law down, and participation was made voluntary. Several states opted not to do so.

Unlike Medicare, many aspects of the Medicaid program are controlled at the state level. States split the cost of the program with the feds, but each state decides what to pay for each service. The states that pay as little as they can get away with were most of the ones that refused the expansion.

I am an admitted novice when it comes to anything medical and welcome all the clarification I can get.

consevadems like Blanche Lincoln and Lieberman who stopped the idea of lowering the age of medicare cold...hardly Obama's fault; although he was blamed and the green slime left showed him by not voting in the midterm so we lost the house and got absolutely nothing for the rest of the term...and then in 14 with his lowest ratings , he was abandoned yet again and we lost the Senate...this caused us to lose a judge. So maybe it is time that we Democrats deal with political reality and not abandon our leaders when it is not possible to get everything we want now.

I would prefer medicaid for all. A minimum co-pay is all I have to pay and that's it.

If we can afford endless wars and such, we can afford universal healthcare/single payer. Medicare can be expensive for some.

I have to also pay some freaking premium along with the Medicare or some shit. I have an appointment with an advocate next week to work out the details and get educated about it all.

For one thing there are no out of pocket cost with medicaid and there are things medicaid covers which medicare does not. Such as dental and vaccinations.

That is the problem with MEDICAID. You are really stuck if you are on it and it does not cover a lot of things, like various medications, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

I am on MEDICARE. The supplemental policy runs $1,000 a month for two persons and a $135+ is deducted from your Social Security check for it. I also have private dental coverage.

There are no free rides in America, none.

other than maybe some new drugs which have no generics available and even most of those medicaid will cover. Lack of providers would not be a problem in a medicaid for all system, because providers would have no choice. No choice if they want business anyway.

Probably most of the medications I take are not covered. Nope.

It is for very poor people. The gov't owns you when you are on Medicaid. You can have no more than $2,000.00 to your name.

pays for them, because one of the manager care organizations here in Kentucky passport keeps a comprehensive list of all the medications they cover and that list is available online. Yes it is true you cannot have more than 2,000 dollars in assets to be eligible for medicaid currently, but that would change in a medicaid for all system. Everybody already pays taxes to support medicaid and VA insurance. In a medicaid for all system there would be no need for VA insurance anymore. Sure higher taxes will have to be paid to support it, but I think it would be worth it. However I do not believe it would 40 to 50% higher like someone on this thread has claimed and even if it were it does have to be that across the board wealthy people have been under taxed for the last 50 years.

Medicare for all is politically impossible to achieve and not the best Universal Healthcare plan.

The only way Medicare for all work is if it covers everyone.

Good luck getting the 50% of Americans who get their healthcare from their employer to give it up for something New! And Better! Trust us! It is not happening. But expanding the now popular ACA until it becomes Universal Healthcare is doable.

worry about getting employees to give the plans they got through work, because their employers will simply stop paying for them.

Vote for me and get dropped from your insurance plan!! I hope we can come up with some more appealing!

Until someone shows me a valid way to actually provide the tax revenue necessary for a single payer system I will not be a supporter. And not some article touting sociatal savings, which is all I have seen.

We can work on expanding the ACA and achieve the goal we all have: Universal Healthcare.

When the ACA expanded medicaid there were spouses who were dropped from their husband or wives plans, because there was no reason for employers to continue paying for their plans when they were eligible for medicaid and some companies that employed the working poor dropped their junk insurance plans and encouraged their employees to go on medicaid. Getting to universal healthcare is the ultimate goal, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to compromise. I would be willing to settle for Sherrod Brown's medicare at 55 proposal for now.

not to seek it or get it because of non-affordability. Make the necessary tweeks that we need to in order to get there.

For people who have great coverage through their jobs, fine. Leave that alone and let them keep receiving great coverage through their job.

But for people who don't have great coverage through their jobs, they are the ones who need access to affordable coverage. And I don't mean paying $300-400 a month premiums for plans that don't pay for the first $6,000 of their medical expenses, or such kind of that nonsense. That just means they don't go to the doctor when they need to. It is catastrophic coverage. It might prevent bankruptcy, which is good, its a start, but they still aren't seeing doctors when they need to. I've been on this kind of coverage before, and it sucks. People who have great jobs with insurance are one unexpected pink slip away from being on it. People who have jobs that provide shit coverage are already suffering on it. People on some Obamacare plans are on it, even though they are receiving subsidies, the plan doesn't often pay for the actual care they need because of the high deductibles and co-pays.

There are optional solutions that could be put in place. For example, someone who has type 1 diabetes and suddenly loses his job with his great insurance, and who needs a $5000 insulin pump and $1500 a month of insulin and testing supplies. Go ahead and put THAT PERSON on Medicaid, or Medicare, depending on his particular resources how you do it, but don't send an already cash strapped person to unaffordable insurance options that will obviously crush him financially or drain his retirement savings so that wealthy insurance execs can keep getting great bonuses that allow them to live like Egyptian princes. We need to be better than this, and we need common sense solutions from our Congress to make it happen, instead of taking payoff money from the Egyptian princes.

is the moral case.

What Obama did with ACA was a big step in the right direction, but cost him a lot of political capital. I would have liked to see a stronger argument that it is the right thing to do, to provide more people with health care. I would have liked to see the Christian right have biblical quotes thrown at them about caring for others and looking after the sick and the weak.

I would have liked to see Republicans who blocked Medicare expansion labeled as mean-spirited, and callous. This is a moral issue. It is about our values and who we are, what kind of people we want to be. This is what it should have been about.

It is almost impossible in the UK for a politician to argue about taking healthcare away from people. This is how it should be in America. Where is the outrage? The outrage should be about denying people healthcare, instead it is about giving people healthcare.

The nasty, mean-spirited bastards should have been called out on it, but they were allowed to let their hate and poison fester and spread.

Health care should be in the constitution

look like.

You at this point, are for a political phrase.

Who is not for any health care plan. So I am for anyone who will support the existing ACA.

Medicare is bloated system with insufficient reimbursement riddled with fraud that doesn’t cover near enough. Use the ACA, fix the co-pays for middle income people, add a public option with a Medicare expansion that can reasonably take in the millions of new subscribers.

And I’m going to keep screaming this: once we acquire universal healthcare, which is the goal for everyone, even if we argue how to get there, MAKE SURE THERE ARE ENOUGH PROVIDERS. We are facing a nursing shortage. We are facing a provider shortage. Addressing this in a reasonable time frame is crucial for any system of healthcare delivery. Medicare reimbursement for hospitals is, in part based on outcomes. If you don’t have enough skilled workers, you are not going to get these outcomes.

but that's a problem with the current rationed healthcare system (rationed on ability to pay), and some folks have been calling for years, for this to be addressed. PNHP link

It is medicaid or medicare for all etc it can easily be paid for by removing ins and pharma control of the system and costs as well as by raising taxes. Medicare controls costs, for instance in one case paying only 30,000 for radiation treatments when $150,000 is the decided cost, which is still way too high a price. Controlling costs is a large part of it. At some point someone, I’ve forgotten who at the moment, voted against allowing control of drug costs etc and allowed ins and pharma companies to continue to control things. If Nixon had not resigned we would probably have medicare that you can buy into at 55 as I recall, or maybe it was medicare for all.

My girlfriend works at a hospital the fraud and waste is astonishing, they need money the keep people overnight that don't need to be, blood work constantly ordered that don't need it its sad really

Experience is more common where they throw you out as quickly as possible. I’m sure there is some of that too. Most testing done when you are ill enough to be there is needed. But I was referring more to overall costs being way too high, even when they are moderated they are very high.