GEA Golf Forum > Understanding “Medicare for All”

Full Version: Understanding “Medicare for All”

From: Nat (NATROBIN) [#1]
 6 Dec 2017
To: ALL

An interesting opinion piece in the New England J Medicine. Easy to read for all.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1713510?query=TOC

Reply


From: HTG (HOUTEXGOLFER) [#2]
 6 Dec 2017
To: Nat (NATROBIN) [#1] 6 Dec 2017

Interesting read. Too bad the "compassion and duty" have become very unpopular of late.

Reply


From: CROTHERS1 [#3]
 6 Dec 2017
To: Nat (NATROBIN) [#1] 6 Dec 2017

Thank you for posting. Interesting and thought provoking.

My sentiment is much the same as the author hints at (although I did not have the sophistication of his reasoning): a single payer system is inevitable. The irony is that those most opposed to adoption of "medicare for all" will be largely responsible the United States eventually becoming a single payer system. They didn't want Obamacare. They don't want to give any subsidies to the poor. They don't want to implement any cost controls..........just let the free market system work.

Eventually it will lead to a sea change....as the author relates that which occurred between Truman and Johnson....and the United States will join the rest of the industralized world.

Reply


From: bcjim [#4]
 6 Dec 2017
To: ALL

Everyone should read this part carefully (or twice, as necessary :-) )

No other country has experienced a rise in inequality as steep or as high as the one we’ve seen in the United States. In 1970, standard inequality measures pegged the United States at roughly the same level as France and Japan; almost 50 years later, U.S. inequality levels are closer to those of Mexico and Brazil than to those in Northern Europe.4 Today, the top 1% of households control 38.6% of the country’s wealth, far more than the bottom 90% (which controls just 22.8%). The median white family (in the exact midpoint of the income distribution) is 10 times as wealthy as the median black family. Intergenerational economic mobility has stagnated.5 Political scientists generally believe that rising inequality and slowing mobility have a destabilizing effect — and they may be driving the angry populism that is now stirring on both the left and right ends of the political spectrum.

Reply


From: Nat (NATROBIN) [#5]
 6 Dec 2017
To: CROTHERS1 [#3] 6 Dec 2017

Agree. The economic forces are too great, both in healthcare and economic disparity

Reply


From: covfefe (MSSES) [#6]
 6 Dec 2017
To: bcjim [#4] 6 Dec 2017

quote: bcjim
Everyone should read this part carefully (or twice, as necessary :-) )

No other country has experienced a rise in inequality as steep or as high as the one we’ve seen in the United States. In 1970, standard inequality measures pegged the United States at roughly the same level as France and Japan; almost 50 years later, U.S. inequality levels are closer to those of Mexico and Brazil than to those in Northern Europe.4 Today, the top 1% of households control 38.6% of the country’s wealth, far more than the bottom 90% (which controls just 22.8%). The median white family (in the exact midpoint of the income distribution) is 10 times as wealthy as the median black family. Intergenerational economic mobility has stagnated.5 Political scientists generally believe that rising inequality and slowing mobility have a destabilizing effect — and they may be driving the angry populism that is now stirring on both the left and right ends of the political spe


Hmmm, not mention of Russian hackers.

Reply


From: Art.. (ARTMBGOLF) [#7]
 6 Dec 2017
To: ALL

The Medicare system could be used as a model for all.
Besides the A,B,C,D for seniors. There could be other codes
for various plans, based on desired coverage with costs based on
income or free for the Medicaid people. One problem with this
is what happens to the insurance companies.

The wealth gap is widening because the money of successful
people/businesses keeps compounding faster than the poor to
average person. We also have more people than ever at all levels, so
it shows up more, thanks to the media.

Reply


From: Dave [#8]
 6 Dec 2017
To: bcjim [#4] 6 Dec 2017

"No other country has experienced a rise in inequality as steep or as high as the one we’ve seen in the United States."

You can stop reading right there. Do you realize that if you require surgery in central america or africa, you have to bring your own medication, blood and surgical supplies? When you have everything on the list, come on down.

Reply


From: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#9]
 6 Dec 2017
To: Dave [#8] 7 Dec 2017

In a nutshell...every other country pretty much sucks...except Canada. They are good neighbors.

Reply


From: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#10]
 6 Dec 2017
To: Nat (NATROBIN) [#1] 7 Dec 2017

Honestly, do it...don't do it...I don't care.

If they do, myself and others...probably most of the people on here would buy a supplemental health plan or it would be provided by our employers and then the next GRIPE from the 'have nots' would be "those rich white guys have better insurance than our free insurance" and on and on and on...because of our supplemental insurance we will probably get preferred treatment, etc., etc., etc.

It will never stop.

Reply


From: bcjim [#11]
 6 Dec 2017
To: Dave [#8] 7 Dec 2017

Conditions in third world countries don't seem all that relevant to the point being made.

Reply


From: Neal (RNB65) [#12]
 6 Dec 2017
To: Nat (NATROBIN) [#1] 7 Dec 2017

I am 100% in favor of a universal healthcare system which combines single-payer with private supplemental insurance. The current system is a joke.

Reply


From: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#13]
 7 Dec 2017
To: Neal (RNB65) [#12] 7 Dec 2017

Here is what I do not understand. Why can't employers just do what we do with the IBEW and NECA health plans?

I've been a trustee on multiple joint labor-management health insurance funds.

We have never had Pre-existing conditions. We have AWESOME coverage...I mean, Cadillac plan coverage. We are all self funded/self insured, we also covered children of parents up to age 25 so long as enrolled in college. Our plans will cover an employee if he is single or married with 19 kids...we cover it ALL.

Our monthly premiums were and have been far less than a comparable plan on the open market.

Why is it so hard for other trades/industries to replicate this model of insurance? YES, there is cost involved with these plans, but in the end...we do a better job at this than the 'so called professionals'.

We have been doing this for almost 60 years and no...it is not perfect, but it darn sure is better than the vast majority of other plans in the country.

Reply


From: bcjim [#14]
 7 Dec 2017
To: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#13] 7 Dec 2017

Well, I imagine you do it via charging people through the nose for your union services.

Are you actually self insured, as in there is no insurance company involved? You just have a pile of cash that pays members medical bills?

Reply


From: ned (NIGGBAYRULES) [#15]
 7 Dec 2017
To: Art.. (ARTMBGOLF) [#7] 7 Dec 2017

dont worry about the insurance companies!

Reply


From: ned (NIGGBAYRULES) [#16]
 7 Dec 2017
To: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#13] 7 Dec 2017

sounds like a good system

getting a few years income in early without major claims would be important here?

Reply


From: jvincent [#17]
 7 Dec 2017
To: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#13] 7 Dec 2017

I don't know the numbers in the US, but how many workers are part of a union or official trade association?

As you know, insurance is all about numbers. If you get enough people in a plan that are REQUIRED (key here) to pay into the plan then the law of averages means that you should have enough healthy people to cover the costs of the sick. Also, if you are large enough, you can dictate terms to service providers.

Here in Canada we have single payer with supplemental. And as you rightly point out the folks without supplemental complain about that but it's better than the alternative.

Reply


From: Hardware Junkie (HOWARDCA) [#18]
 7 Dec 2017
To: bcjim [#14] 7 Dec 2017

quote: bcjim
Well, I imagine you do it via charging people through the nose for your union services.

Are you actually self insured, as in there is no insurance company involved? You just have a pile of cash that pays members medical bills?


Most really large employers (IBM, GE, Boeing, Microsoft, etc.) self-insure. They pay a plan administrator, but they pay the bills. I used to love it when the health care administrators tried to deflect decisions "out of our hands, it's the responsibility of the administrator." They hated the question "aren't we self insured?" I don't know how big the employer has to be for the decision to make economic sense, but a lot do it this way.

Reply


From: Boomslang (DAVE PINKSTON) [#19]
 7 Dec 2017
To: bcjim [#4] 7 Dec 2017

A lot of the bottom 90% are satisfied with not paying taxes. Like 44% of all taxpayers. Soon to be 50% if the tax bill goes through. You can't accumulate wealth if you're in that group. There's a lot of incentive to be at the bottom end. It's called the nanny state.

Dave P

Reply


From: Boomslang (DAVE PINKSTON) [#20]
 7 Dec 2017
To: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX) [#10] 7 Dec 2017

quote: COME_AND_TAKE_IT! (HAX)
Honestly, do it...don't do it...I don't care.

If they do, myself and others...probably most of the people on here would buy a supplemental health plan or it would be provided by our employers and then the next GRIPE from the 'have nots' would be "those rich white guys have better insurance than our free insurance" and on and on and on...because of our supplemental insurance we will probably get preferred treatment, etc., etc., etc.

It will never stop.


It's a slippery slope.

Dave P

Reply


Show messages:  1-20  21-40  41-60  61-80  …  341-342

Reply to All

Back to thread list | Login

© 2018 Project Beehive Forum