Medicare for All Would Cut Poverty by Over 20 Percent

Medicare for all is the obvious answer.

The main people trying to block is are those making huge profits from the current American health system

Medicare For All is inevitable. I don't think we're going to see it, though, until the Boomers are gone.

They have ads running 24/7 against it now.

So Medicare covers everything and you don’t have to pay anything for it. Sounds almost too good to be true.

Expect 900 threads from Boris on trans, muslims, trans muslims, and anything else he can dream up to deflect from and bury this.

Americans don’t want to give up their healthcare through their employer. Medicare for All will never happen. There needs to be a comprehensive supplemental plan put in place for those who don’t have it. Americans don’t trust government and for good reason. It’s inept and run by clowns. The majority of Americans get healthcare through their employer. Americans are only for Medicare for those who want it.

And don’t forget how many votes you need to overhaul healthcare. It’s impossible.

Americans have been brainwashed by corporations about universal health coverage for generations. Same with gun control or third party politics.

How does Medicare For All differ from Medicare? Because Medicare as of now most certainly DOES have deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and self-payment for non-covered services, and as of January 1st will cost about $180 a month, per person, for hospital, medical, and drug coverage and a majority of Medicare beneficiaries buy additional (Medi-gap) coverage to cover those costs Medicare does not at a premium cost that averaged $143 a person in 2018 depending on their plan. That's $323 a month, per person, and still does not cover everything: patients still pay, at a minimum, for each doctor's office visit and a co-pay for each prescription.

Presumably, if Medicare for all covers these costs the cost per participant will be at least $4000 per person per year for less than complete coverage. Or, put another way, for a family with three kids, $20,000 a year and you still need to pay for every office visit and prescription medicine.

I'm not opposed to Medicare For All but assume doctors and hospitals will be because their reimbursement levels will be set by the government. There's already a physician shortage in the United States with something like a third of the MD's now in practice retiring in the next 10 years and a predicted shortfall of between 50,000 and 122,000 MD's in the next 15 years. I'm not sure telling people they can't make as much money as they might have expected to make after the cost and effort of 10 - 12 years of education and training is the best way to assure an adequate continuing supply of medical professionals.

Will individuals continue, as workers who get coverage through their employer do now (thanks to an employer subsidy), continue to receive that subsidy from their employers? For that matter, will employers even offer coverage if it's seen as a universal government benefit?

I want to see everyone insured but the devil, as always, is in the details.

Employer-based healthcare was introduced in the US during WW2 because of rationing by the government - couldn’t raise wages so had to entice workers to stay be offering bennies.

It really should be called "enhanced Medicare for All," which offers more than medicare. It would like the single-payer model used successfully in so many developed countries.

Even Medicare doesn't offer anywhere close to what the elderly in Europe get.

[quote] Americans don’t want to give up their healthcare through their employer.

Really? Who is so enamored by their employer healthcare that they will fight to keep it. Premiums, co-pays, deductibles are all going up quickly. They are restricting your "choice" more and more.

Americans will soon wake up.

First off, of the 330,000,000 Americans, only 190,000,000. have jobs. Yes many are on their spouses plan or their parents plan but there are a lot of single adults who don't work or work for a company without health care benefits. Americans DO NOT like the employee based health care system. It keeps you tethered to a job situation you might not like. Employers often use this to retain employees who would be out the door if not trapped by their insurance plan.

[quote] And don’t forget how many votes you need to overhaul healthcare. It’s impossible.

Not when more and more of the middle class will go bankrupt because of bills.

[quote] How does Medicare For All differ from Medicare? Because Medicare as of now most certainly DOES have deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and self-payment for non-covered services

See R11. Most Medicare for All proposals get rid of premiums, deductibles, co-pays etc.

Even if they stayed, Medicares deductibles and copays are far lower than those of private insurance

I want to pay more and get less!!

--the basic argument of conservatives

[quote] Americans don’t trust government and for good reason. It’s inept and run by clowns.

the two most loved programs in America, Medicare and social security, are run very well by the government

[quote] They have ads running 24/7 against it now.

It's always about creating doubt in peoples' minds. People don't like change unless they're forced to by circumstances. Until they feel the pain, they will usually never understand the pain felt by others.

[quote] They have ads running 24/7 against it now.

The ads are so skeevy-- they constantly tell you that your taxes will go up but purposely neglect to tell you that, because you no longer have to pay for your insurance separately, overall, your costs will go down.

America cannot afford 20% of its budget going to healthcare where the world hovers around 10%, covers everyone, and has better outcomes.

R9, “Medicare for All” does not mean taking the existing Medicare plans as applied to seniors and expand them to cover everyone; it means taking the system and the infrastructure provided by Medicare as a government run healthcare system and make it a universal healthcare system. The proposals being offered for Medicare for All all stress that the patient would not pay out of pocket for anything except some prescriptions, which would be negotiated down to very affordable levels by the government. Most would even be free.

And before anyone asks “how will we pay for this;” we will pay for it like every other country that provides universal healthcare: by taxing the wealthiest the most, and everyone else a little bit more, resulting in a net savings on healthcare for the 99% and a tiny tax increase for the 1%.

Health care is a huge business in the U.S. However, the number of people actually providing health care (doctors, nurses, hospital/nursing home employees).

The real meat, and the real money in U.S. healthcare is in the insurance industry. Insurance company execs and their minions make billions of dollars annually, so they have a very vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Treat any attempt to discredit any single payer system with the same scorn and contempt as you would any entrenched, powerful clique.

[quote]Americans DO NOT like the employee based health care system.

Yes they do. Read the polls and read the studies done over the past two years.

[quote]the two most loved programs in America, Medicare and social security, are run very well by the government

lol, no they aren’t.

SS and Medicare are no worse than private insurance companies for the mind-numbing incompetence of their employees and bureaucratic red tape.

[quote]Medicare for All Would Cut Poverty by Over 20 Percent

The people being polled that say they like employee based health care are mostly older retirees who are on Medicare anyway. Almost a third of the jobs in the US don't offer or barely offer any health care at all. All the old folks on Medicare don't get employee based health care.

[quote]Health care is a huge business in the U.S.

Which is exactly the problem; health care is not and never should be a “business.” No one should be profiting from illnesses and accidents that are part of the human condition. Health care is a service for saving lives — period. Collect taxes to fund the system, keep costs low, and reinvest any accidental profits into the system — and make it work for EVERYONE, not just the wealthy and powerful.

Every single health insurance employee could get laid off tomorrow and I wouldn’t shed a single tear. They are literal blood-suckers. Stealers of life. Deniers of care. Profiters from misery. They can all rot.

I don’t know a single person who likes their employment-derived (NOT “provided”) health insurance. I don’t know a single person who isn’t paying for half of it out of their paycheck and still more of it through high deductibles and co-pays.

These polls showing people saying they love their health insurance through their employment are rigged, or just poorly executed. It’s a fucking joke.

I's such a comfort to know you have employee derived health care when you or your spouse a child have a chronic illness. You can't leave that job without a lot of consideration, like: Will any new job cover us? Such a stupid system to have to have not only a job, but a certain type of job to get health care.

A friend of mine left his job after watching how a coworker diagnosed with brain cancer was treated by their employer. Because the employer was paying for this guys healthcare and brain cancer is expensive, they did everything they could to run him out of his job - while at the same time making public pronouncements about how supportive they were. Is this that employer provided health care we’re all supposed to be so excited about?

[quote]lol, no they aren’t.

lol, yes they are.

r26, that's hillarious that of all people to show laughing, you would choose spoiled little rich kid Karen Walker. She's funny, but empathetic to the poor and middle class she most definitely is not.

He's used that GIF in other threads, R33. It's his goto when he doesn't have an answer for what's being discussed. He's hoping that nobody will notice that he can't actually address the topic, support what he's writing, or counter what someone else is writing.

Americans don't love their health care system as much as some on this thread are claiming, apparently.

71% of Americans say the system is "in a state of crisis" or "has major problems."

[quote]So Medicare covers everything and you don’t have to pay anything for it. Sounds almost too good to be true.

It is. Most of the proposals offer routine health care, checkups, etc., that is completely free, which they damn well need to do, but do have copays and deductibles for some of the larger expenses, suitably supplemented for those who need help.

Like Medicare, it's a virtual certainty that there will be a supplemental insurance market offering enhanced benefits for those who can afford it.

Exactly r31. I keep commenting on this topic because having insurance connected to employment has so many problems; too many people compromise better wages/job, for health insurance, employers can use benefits as a justification for stagnant wages, employees have no choice if the employer suddenly changes health insurance, employers find ways to cut expensive employees, it compromises employee's right to privacy, etc.

Often times, when an illness or injury becomes chronic, employees end up losing their job anyway. There's absolutely no security with health coverage through employers. I could share endless stories about employer health insurance, that quickly turned into a nightmare for the employees.

There's no reason to be against a Medicare for all type system, that provides basic coverage, while still allowing choices in private insurance. That covers excuses about losing insurance related jobs and lets people continue to still feel privileged with their better insurance.

Every other civilized country in the world has had universal healthcare for ages and their societies haven't collapsed, they're all running along smoothly. Yet so many Americans think that if UH gets implemented in the US, it's going to be a disaster. The facts are quite different, though. Why are Americans so opposed to UH?

"Why are Americans so opposed to UH?"

Because they're racist assholes who would rather go broke themselves than have a black or brown person get a god damned dime of free health care.

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." This quote sums up the white American psyche quite nicely and succinctly.

[quote]I don’t know a single person who likes their employment-derived (NOT “provided”) health insurance.

Because you live in a bubble.

[quote]Every other civilized country in the world has had universal healthcare for ages and their societies haven't collapsed, they're all running along smoothly.

lmfao, put down the pipe, dear.

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you, R42?

[quote]Yes they do. Read the polls and read the studies done over the past two years.

Polls actually show a slight majority favoring single payer.

Who would like employer-based healthcare knowing that 86 million people per year change employers? With employer-based insurance, you have little choice and it goes away the second you leave unless you pay and arm and a leg.

[quote]Because you live in a bubble.

Dems and Repubs alike show support for single payer. When Bernie had his Fox News interview, most of the audience held up its hands when asked if they would like single payer over what they have now.

Tell people they would pay 1/3 less than they have now with employer insurance. There would no premiums, deductibles, so=pays, co-insurance.

Now ask them again how much they want to keep the employer insurance they have

After the Civil War, the US created hospitals to take care of everyone. When people protested that they didn't want to pay for the care of blacks, all the hospitals were closed and torn down.

The reason we don't have universal healthcare while every other developed country in the world does is white people hate black people.

[quote]nSS and Medicare are no worse than private insurance companies for the mind-numbing incompetence of their employees and bureaucratic red tape.

What bureaucratic red tape have you experienced with SS and Medicare? None.

The point of the red tape for private insurance is so they can maximize your profits. Medicare and SS don't have that main aim.

[quote] lol, no they aren’t.—Social Security worker

Actually Medicare and SS ARE America's best loved programs. Try to change them for the worse, and you will immediately get voted out of office.

I have yet to hear of a single elderly person who would rather go have private insurance than Medicare. They are all relieved they no longer have to deal with the bull shit of private insurance

Seriously Republicans, go ahead and touch Social Security and Medicare. Do it. Others will enjoy your immediate loss. Go. Do it. Now.

See my post at R40, R49 and R50.

If Republicans propose to eliminate SS and Medicare entirely because too many undeserving blacks and browns are getting benefits, white people will gladly surrender those benefits and hop on the band wagon.

You are severely underestimating the stupidity, ignorance and racism of deplorables, R49/R50. Never forget LBJ's comment because it's the very core of America.

I haven't read through all the comments, but the only way M4A would do that would be for them to change the way Medicare works. I don't know where this idea that M4A would completely remove deductibles, copays, & coinsurance comes from unless they completely change the way Medicare works. Recipients are still responsible for 20% of the costs (unless they have a Medigap policy) as well as a yearly deductible, small though it is (currently $185).

But honestly, the only way we'll ever see a system like that is if the democrats retake the White House and both Houses of Congress with a super majority.

[quote]I have yet to hear of a single elderly person who would rather go have private insurance than Medicare

Mostly, you can't get private insurance to offer anything more than supplemental plans to Medicare recipients. Those recipients are generally the oldest and least healthy people on the market. No insurance company wants them, and for damn good reason.

We can make that taking over both houses and the super majority happen. We have the power to do that. All we have to do is give up a couple of hours of our time and get out and vote. Does it really seem like such a hardship for all you'll get in return?

Anyone who thinks that insurers, loaded with billions won't do again to Democrats what they did in 2010 and dominate the message to ignorant voters with intense, false demagoguery is out of their fucking minds. I realize this includes ALL Bernie voters, Justice Democrats and about 70% of Elizabeth Warren fans.

They tried that with the ACA, R55, remember? And they succeeded in the short-term battle but they're losing the war. In particular, a majority of the public now want the federal government to guarantee their health care. And Medicare remains popular, despite everything they've tried to do over the years.

You don't give up on what's right just because you're pissing your pants in fear over what someone else might say. You fight for it.

And we're going to get that WHEN exactly, r54? Once your god Bernie magically gets elected and magically makes it happen?

R47 Got a link for those claims? Or is this one of those situations where ‘facts are racist’ and ‘how dare you ask me for proof, you bigot!’?

Notice too, every time the republicans start talking about cutting Medicare or Social Security, it's to be implemented years down the road. That way they can get the current retirees to get on board. I've got mine don't touch it...but fuck you down the road.

R58 of course he doesn’t. He’s too busy blaming everything on RACE!!!

Someone clearly needs SOME type of insurance to cover his mental illness needs.

[quote] Because they're racist assholes who would rather go broke themselves than have a black or brown person get a god damned dime of free health care.

We need to lower the voting age to 16 and cut off voting for anyone over 75. We’d have universal medicare and repeal the second amendment within a week.

r40 I think that has a lot to do with it. Americans are afraid that one single person they don't like is going to get it, that's why they're opposed to universal healthcare.

I'm amazed at how many Russian people in my Brooklyn NY neighborhood (I hear the ones in Staten Island and NJ are just as bad) who came here in the 80s and 90s not only hate people of color or of the Muslim religion but hate new immigrants, including those who come from Russia. They hate people who are on Medicaid or SSI or SNAP or get any help from the government even if they themselves did/do. So many of them voted for Trump. I get that he's in cahoots with Putin and Russia but I don't think it's that. I think it's just their racism. In many ways they are just like the rednecks in red states. They vote according to their own racism and hatred. It's just even worse because they came here for a better life too. Who the hell needs even more people like that to come here to vote out of hate. We have enough home bred hate filled racists for that.

R58, just look up the history of healthcare in the US. You’ll see it’s a big Fuck You to blacks.

NY Times’ 1619 analysis of how slavery affects modern America has a wonderful article on race has dictated our health system today. Google it

R63, the Russian immigrants are experts on how to milk any government program, particularly Medicaid

NY Times:

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care? The answer has everything to do with race.

See link below for article

Before Medicare, hospitals were segregated. Even in emergencies, hospitals for white people would reject blacks that came to their doors.

Instead, blacks had to always go to hospitals without much funding.

One of the big changes Medicare caused was the integration of hospitals. LBJ worked long and hard with southern politicians and hospitals to make them Integrate before he would allow them to bill Medicare

I recall a N.Y. Times article about a town in some flyover state. The reporters interviewed people who lived there. They all looked down on people who had any sort of welfare benefit.

The truth was they ALL had government help; it just wasn’t called “welfare.”

The GOP actively tried to turn people against Medicaid by making it seem like it’s a program for minorities. Reagan referees to the Welfare Momma, a black woman with tons of kids.

The truth is the majority of people using Medicaid is white.

The only people fighting against Medicare for All are the people who make lots of money in the current system .

The love the gravy train and don’t give a shit about actually covering Americans when it comes to healthcare. This is why the GOP can’t come up with any alternative to ACA although it’s been a decade

R58 and R60 are the same person.

“Racism doesn’t exist anymore!!”

Personally I don't think universal health care will ever be accomplished in the US until the health care industry is regulated en masse. The government should set the amounts doctors, hospitals, & pharmacies should be allowed to charge. The days of people wanting to become doctors in order to help people is long over. The vast majority of people who become physicians do so for one reason, to become rich. Sad to say, but that's one area where Russia and Cuba do a far better job than the US.

R13, are you even an American?

[quote]First off, of the 330,000,000 Americans, only 190,000,000. have jobs. Yes many are on their spouses plan or their parents plan but there are a lot of single adults who don't work or work for a company without health care benefits.

There's only about 30 million uninsured people in the US. A little over half the country gets their insurance through their job. The rest are through medicare, medicaid and the VA.

[quote]Americans DO NOT like the employee based health care system.

[quote]Polls say otherwise. Support for medicare for all drops significantly when people learn they will lose their employer sponsored healthcare.

[quote]It keeps you tethered to a job situation you might not like. Employers often use this to retain employees who would be out the door if not trapped by their insurance plan.

What a load of bullshit. Most people are insured the day they start their new job. And there's COBRA for those few that have a three month waiting period. Some companies even pick up the COBRA expense.

[quote]And before anyone asks “how will we pay for this;” we will pay for it like every other country that provides universal healthcare: by taxing the wealthiest the most, and everyone else a little bit more, resulting in a net savings on healthcare for the 99% and a tiny tax increase for the 1%.

Um, not quite. Most of these countries have a flatter tax structure where everyone, including the poor, pay taxes. They also have VAT taxes, which is a regressive tax that will hits the poor the hardest.

Seriously, have you not been following what's been happening in France?

R74, in the US, the poor pay taxes too. They just don’t pay income taxes. They pay sales tax, gas tax, etc

It’s easy to pay for Medicare for all without increasing the total everyone pays. In fact, people will pay less.

Just take the money your employer takes out for insurance and send it to Medicare instead of to the private insurance companies.

In fact, just send 2/3rds of it to Medicare and keep the other 1/3rd as an addition to your paycheck.

Most estimates say that Medicare for all will cost 1/3rd less overall

Do you like your private insurance.

I bet if you have any sort of major health problem, the answer is no

R73, except all jobs don’t offer health insurance

R75 the poor in this country get tax refunds. That doesn't happen in the countries that people point to and say "but, but they do it". Everyone contributes in these countries. If you are comparing a sales tax to a VAT tax that tells me you don't understand the difference. VAT taxes are about 20%.

Most people here don't take property taxes into consideration either. You are going to have to convince people from high tax states and who get insurance through their employer why paying even more taxes is a good thing. Property taxes on a modest home in NYS eats up about 15% of income.

No shit, r78. But the majority do and those who don't get their insurance though their employer either fall into the 30 million uninsured or get their insurance through the ACA.

There are ways to insure those 30 million without taking away from what the majority.

R73 There's more than 30 million uninsured Americans. And there's another 60 million underinsured Americans. Have you switched jobs while dealing with a chronic condition or someone (spouse, child) on your plan? Trust me, it's far from straightforward and seamless.

R73 So you're admitting that almost half of all Americans get their healthcare thru Medicare or Medicaid. These government programs are successfully insuring BY FAR the sickest among us..you know, the ones that actually use the most healthcare. Private insurance, the other half, then gets to "cherry pick" the healthiest to insure...at rates per person MORE than what the government spends per person insuring the sickest.

Stats on uninsured...

R82, WTF are you going on about? First, half is over 50%, so no, half don't get their coverage through medicare or medicaid. Second, the number of people who are insured but not through private insurance also includes people covered thought ACA exchanges, so even that approximately 40% (not half), is not all medicare and medicaid. And lastly, I never said medicare and medicaid aren't run well, they just aren't preferred by people with private insurance. Seriously, WTF r82?

And more stats on uninsured...

The ACA was working until Trump.

Wait what? Insurance through the ACA isn't still private insurance?

Depends, r85. Most people think of private as employer sponsored.

And if you want to define private insurance as employer and the ACA market then you're looking at about 57% of the population, r85.

[quote]Most people are insured the day they start their new job.

This is the biggest load of horse shit ever posted on DL. Thank god I have this fucking troll blocked already. It’s either Boris or Milo or someone interchangeable in their abject stupidity.

“Most people” have a probation period of around 90 days before benefits kick in. That is, “most people” who have full-time jobs that come with benefits. Those who don’t include part time workers, including the many who work multiple part time jobs to make up for a lack of full time jobs. Also excluded are independent contractors like freelancers, “per diems” and the self-employed. So, no, idiot, “most people” do not receive health insurance on the day they start a new job.

Then there are the workers in a firm in my company’s office building: every full time employee was laid off at once, and told to reapply for their old jobs, which are now classified as “part time.” They officially work a 6.5 hour day now, with a one hour unpaid break. It used to be an 8 hour day with no set break, so, essentially, one half hour was cut per day. They have no benefits now, no health insurance and no paid time off. They are all expected to do the same amount of work. Most reapply and took the cuts because they had no better options. Corporations exist to bleed every single one of us dry.

Doesn't matter, OP.

What matters is that Bernie is the standard bearer for MfA, so that alone means that Datalounge is against it.

COBRA cost an arm and a leg — I think I was quoted $800/mo when I was laid off 10 years ago.

If you’re downplaying the health insurance crisis in the US, you’re a fucking troll. There is nothing fair or equitable about it, even for the fully employed and insured. Everyone has a horror story, either their own or a loved one. Unless you’re the 1% and buying healthcare is like buying a yacht or a 5th home.

Good thing r88 has me blocked or else I'd have to explain the part of my post he conveniently skipped over -- COBRA.

And r90 some companies pay for COBRA or you can get ACA insurance for three months -- IF your company has a probationary period. And you are fear mongering. The ACA was working until Trump came along and created the crisis.

How can anyone in this country prefer private insurance to Medicare when Medicare has never been an option for most people on private insurance unless they become disabled. Give them the chance to have Medicare, no don't take away the private insurance right away. Their will be chaos if that's done anyway. I think Medicare for All those who want it should be the way to go. The for profit, making money off the sick and dying, private insurance will fade away in no time, at least for most people. There will always be private insurance for the very rich so they can get their faces done and such. I've never known of one person who would give up their Medicare and go back to private insurance. Has anyone? I doubt it.

Right now many of the very rich pay out of pocket anyway. I remember reading that the doctor that killed Joan Rivers didn't take any kind of insurance not even the best private insurance. Cash only.

R92 A lot of rich people pay for medical and surgical services themselves whether the doctor takes insurance or not. They don't want their diagnoses/procedures available to someone processing or accessing the insurance claim.

Years ago I worked for a doctor who took care of members of a famous family. All the bills were sent to the family office on Park Avenue in New York City. Nothing went to Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Medicare. We had other patients who did the same thing - when you're, say, a socialite who's the heiress to a big fortune, you don't want a record of your treatment for an STI (or alcoholism, or anorexia, or projectile vomiting, or drug addiction to name a few I recall) in some insurance company's files with which to be blackmailed.

Private insurance has failed.

Medicare and Medicaid took out the sickest of the population, yet private insurance rates keep rising and rising to crazy levels.

[quote] some companies pay for COBRA or you can get ACA insurance for three months -- IF your company has a probationary period. And you are fear mongering. The ACA was working until Trump came along and created the crisis.

Most companies don’t pay for COBRA. When they don’t, the insured has to pay the full price, which is often prohibitive, especially when one has lost his job.

Why should healthcare be tied to a job in the first place? Delink them

[Quote] Most people are insured the day they start their new job.

Um, what planet do you live on?

Earth, r96. Maybe if you didn't work for Walmart you might do better.

I know you think you're being witty and insulting, R97, but you inadvertently backed up R96's point: there are millions, if not tens of millions, of people out there, including those who work at places like Walmart, who do not get insured "the day they start their new job."

In the retail sector overall, less than half of workers get health coverage from their employer, sometimes because they are covered elsewhere, sometimes because they cannot afford it, sometimes because they have to wait for months to be eligible.

Try Amazon, r98. They'll give you benefits on day one.

And it's funny how you blame the insurance companies while ignoring the real reason cost is so high -- outrageous charges from doctors, hospital and pharma.

I have zero use for you, r98.

The whole point of insurance is to negotiate those rates demanded by doctors, hospitals, and pharma.

Interesting how Medicare has been able to negotiate those rates effectively, while private insurance has not, despite putting lots of restrictions on the insured.

Private insurance is only a middleman that takes your money and pays the doctors and hospitals.

These middle men are getting rich.

Not quite, r100. Hospitals that rely more on medicare and medicaid payments vs private insurance have financial difficulties. In fact, the government had to increase reimbursement rates to several rural hospitals just to keep them afloat.

One of the major disagreements with Bernie's healthcare math is that reimbursement rates will need to increase.

[quote]Maybe if you didn't work for Walmart you might do better.

Shocking. Mr. “Private Insurance is Wonderful and Everyone has it” also attacks the working poor. Yep, just another day on Datalounge, no trolls here, folks.

But that’s socialism!!!

Same place that attacks coal miners, r103.

Even old folks on Medicare still apply for those supplement plans that cover the 20% Medicare doesn't pay. Like plan F, G, N, X, Y, X, all that fucking confusing shit. Often they end up paying about $100-200 a month alone on! Just on the supplemental plans!

[quote]And it's funny how you blame the insurance companies while ignoring the real reason cost is so high -- outrageous charges from doctors, hospital and pharma. I have zero use for you, R98.

Since you simply made up what you claim I said, you might want to point that "zero use for you" right back at yourself. Moreover, you are simply wrong, as there are multiple reasons that costs are high and insurance companies are absolutely part of that equation.

Yeah, because private insurance plans are just a beacon of clarity, r106....

Yes, other Americans don't want healthcare turning into the DMV. Everyone goes and waits a long time. They want healthcare to be run by Facebook, Google, Amazon, a company that pretends everything is ok and caters to the customer.

Sure, it's been successfully implemented in smaller population countries, but what's to stop it from becoming like the DMV in America? Are the people who run it great in Europe going to come over here and run it for us? There's just no faith.

MFA is also great for people starting up businesses--it's one less thing to worry about, especially for families where Obamacare is easily $1K a month or more in many states

It's very pro-entrepreneur

R109, do you really not get just how popular Medicare is? And how many people it covers? And how it has not "become like the DMV?"

I'll just leave this here...

I wouldn't have a problem with insurance companies if the prices weren't so damn high. When it's AFFORDABLE, like Obama aimed for, it's not that bad of a system. The AFFORDABILITY is the issue.

What do you guys think about what Maryland did? They set the hospital prices.

But Obamacare is not affordable R112

For family of four a freaking bronze plan is over $1K month.

That's a lot of money for someone not making a whole lot of money to shell out each month.

Which is why it needs to be $0/month

[quote]Shocking. Mr. “Private Insurance is Wonderful and Everyone has it” also attacks the working poor.

Yup. He was also on another health care thread lying about rural hospitals and claiming that Medicare was destroying them and that a segment on Stephanopoulos proved this. Turns out that when you actually watch the segment, it said no such thing.

[quote]Try Amazon, R98. They'll give you benefits on day one.

Which does not change the simple, undeniable fact that there are millions, if not tens of millions, of people out there, including those who work at places like Walmart, who do not get insured "the day they start their new job." You were simply wrong, something that seems to be a pattern with you.

I think it's great, r113. That's why I get a kick out of the posters who rail about the high cost of insurance without digging deeper. You're still going to pay more except it will be in taxes if you don't do something about the root cause. And if you fix the root cause insurance would be more affordable.

R114, you're ignoring that most of those families of four get assistance, which does make things much more affordable.

It's just ridiculous to hope that people who work for insurance companies, who make their living that way, who fed and clothes their children that way, should lose their jobs and suffer.

They're just trying to survive in this rat race too. What do you want them to be downtrodden like the people you're trying to lift up? Lot of logic there, R28. Lots of those people that you want to have lose their jobs are lower educated, people of color who are working the call centers of those private health insurance companies. Unless you want to give everyone 50k a year, then just shut up, because yours is not a viable solution. There are people of color color insurance agents, would you believe? Yes, they make their living, pay their mortgage off of health care sales. Sad, but that's how it is.

Now when Bernie leads the revolution, what's going to happen to them? What are they going to do?

R116 there are option for people with a probationary period. The ACA has special enrollment, COBRA or shirt term insurance.

But, please, keep fear mongering.

R117, that's where Medicare for All comes in, with a single formulary and one hell of a lot of negotiating power. You want to get at the root cause? Medicare for All will get you there far more quickly than anything currently on the table.

The train may have left the station though.

While this is only evidence from my overprivileged NYC/CA-centric bubble, I have been hearing more people with good white collar jobs bitching about how much their health plans now suck, how the deductibles have gone up, how they don't pay enough for most procedures, how they would gladly pay more for a better policy but it seems none exists.

R120, none of which cover the issue of affordability.

But, please, keep on lying.

"Most" R118

What fucking drug are you on?

The people at the lower end do, but middle class people don't get help and can't really afford $1K/month either

Cut off is $100,400 for a family of 4 which in SF puts them below the poverty level and in other coastal cities keeps them pretty damn close to it too.

Yeah, r121. Sure. So like the hepatitis drug out now priced at $45,000, what's medicare going to negotiate that down to? 25,000? Prices are just going to be inflated so they are "negotiated" down.

Um, R125, how much does that drug cost in Canada? In European countries? You really don't know anything at all about this topic, do you?

[Quote] In fact, the government had to increase reimbursement rates to several rural hospitals just to keep them afloat.

Actually rural hospitals that are failing are predominantly in red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. In states that did, they are doing much better.

Considering much of rural America is poor, these hospitals depend more on Medicaid than they do private insurance

[Quote] In fact, the government had to increase reimbursement rates to several rural hospitals just to keep them afloat.

Actually rural hospitals that are failing are predominantly in red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. In states that did, they are doing much better.

Considering much of rural America is poor, these hospitals depend more on Medicaid than they do private insurance

[quote]"Most" r118? What fucking drug are you on?

It's called reality.

[quote]Nationwide, an estimated 83% of marketplace enrollees qualify for subsidies, ranging from 13% in the District of Columbia and 35% in Hawaii to 92% in Wyoming and 93% in Mississippi. (Members of Congress and some of their staff obtain coverage through the DC exchange and are not eligible for subsidies, which is why the percentage there is so much lower than in the rest of the country.)

There are problems with the ACA but it still remains a fact that most of the participants are eligible for and receive assistance.

R123, fixing the ACA will help with that affordability without taking away insurance from people who don't want to lose their plans. But, please, keep fear mongering.

[Quote] In fact, the government had to increase reimbursement rates to several rural hospitals just to keep them afloat.

Actually rural hospitals that are failing are predominantly in red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. In states that did, they are doing much better.

Considering much of rural America is poor, these hospitals depend more on Medicaid than they do private insurance

But will do nothing about the root cause, R130

But, please, keep lying.

Hey when you guys get older you might want to pay attention to this.

Only in two states have guaranteed issue (you know, common decency) for your Medigap. Good luck with all the other shitty healthcare states!

[quote]Considering much of rural America is poor, these hospitals depend more on Medicaid than they do private insurance

Uh, yea. That's the point.

[Quote] fixing the ACA will help with that affordability without taking away insurance from people who don't want to lose their plans. But, please, keep fear mongering.

Fixing ACA won’t reduce overall costs at all. More and more of the American budget will go to healthcare as insurance companies suck up your money

That Medicaid and Medicare are keeping those rural hospitals open, R134? Good point!

R134, yet just expanding Medicaid to cover more people fixes their balance sheets...

Like Buttigag said, there ought to be basic coverage for all the poors who can't afford shit.

And if you're rich and want to get that special treatment, go for it. Pay away.

But everyone ought to have a right to live, poor or not.

But will do nothing about the root cause, [R130]

No shit, spanky. Never said it would. I'm not railing about costs. I just get a kick out of people like you who do rail about it with ever stopping to think why.

One of the huge reasons hospitals need more money to survive is 1/3rd of hospital resources are stuck in administration.

That administration is created by the varying demands of over 100 insurance companies, each with their own rules

And for God fuckin' sakes if you do't want Sheshiba or Brittany Amanda from the traile park having 10 kids you don't want to pay for than offer her free, preventative contraception. Educate her feeble mind that she can get this nice little old device to keep the little babies from dropping out of her cooch so she can go party.

Why the hell would anyone not be for free birth control? You don't want to pay for them but you expect these ignorant, low paid, health care missing, slack jaw yokels to do it?

Actually, R139, it's because we have thought about the root cause that we are advocating for Medicare for All. It's morons like you fighting against it, without any real solutions to offer, that are demonstrating just how foolish, not to mention ignorant, you are.

Yeah, suuuurrrrreeeeee, r142.

In the meantime, MFA never passes...

You really don't have an answer, do you? You don't know anything at all about this topic, you've been caught making some rather stupid assertions that you cannot support, you can't argue against Medicare for All, so now all you have left is that it's likely to be difficult to pass, which ranks up there as the single most obvious statement on this thread.

So no shit, Sherlock; it will not be easy to pass, at least not right now. But sowing the seeds for it now is absolutely essential because it will pass at some point. We don't have a choice.

[Quote] In the meantime, MFA never passes...

All in good time

Not anytime soon, r145. Especially if you're going to take away employer sponsored insurance.

That still has nothing at all to do with whether it's the right policy or not. If all you've got left is the messaging and politics aspect of this, R146, you've already lost this debate.

Sweetie, as soon as someone can offer a coherent and viable means to pay for it then we'll talk policy. But right now, Bernie's numbers have never added up and Warren is being intentionally vague on both what her healthcare plan is and how she's going to pay for it. Everyone else is for doing the smart thing -- fixing the ACA.

[quote]There are problems with the ACA but it still remains a fact that most of the participants are eligible for and receive assistance.

Not for long. The Trump fuckers are making the subsidies based on age instead of income starting in 2020.

[quote]Under the American Health Care Act subsidies would function largely as they do today through 2019. Starting in 2020 tax credits would be provided to individuals and families based on age, instead of income. Older people would get higher subsidies than younger people.

Hunty, there are literally dozens of plans that offer "coherent and viable means to pay for it." Your ignorance of these issues, an ignorance you have demonstrated now in quite a few posts on multiple threads, is not our problem.

R149, that was a Republican plan that never passed. That was when they were still trying to pretend that they had a viable replacement for the ACA.

Honey, @r150, the only one that's being pushed is Bernie "I Wrote The Damn Plan" Sanders'. Warren may or may not have a similar plan.

Snookums, that's not "the only one that's being pushed." Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Medicare For All is inevitable, but it won't become a reality until every last Boomer is dead.

Awww, baby doll, when they start seriously discussing the other plans at the debates then we'll talk. I mean, seriously, if by chance Bernie wins, do you seriously think he's going for one of the other plans? Do you think Warren is going to back something that she didn't propose (once she finally proposes a plan?)

I have no doubt Medicare for All will not go far soon... by at least it’s finally being discussed at the top levels as a solution.

It will now be discussed for years and become a standard part of the possible answers

[Quote] Sweetie, as soon as someone can offer a coherent and viable means to pay for it then we'll talk policy.

Take the money paid for private insurance and shift 2/3rds of it to Medicare. Keep 1/3 for yourself.

Voila it’s paid for!

Yeah, no, r157.

R158, uh, yeah, that's the math.

Shh, R159: don't bother him with facts. His mind is already made up. And, of course, you're absolutely correct, which is why his posts on "how to pay for it" are hilariously inept.

[quote]Awww, baby doll, when they start seriously discussing the other plans at the debates then we'll talk.

Honey-lamb, there are three candidates right now with Medicare for All plans, along with other Congressional plans for Medicare for All. Moving the goalposts really doesn't help your case, since you specifically asked for, "as soon as someone can offer a coherent and viable means to pay for it...." There are a dozen plans that show how to pay for it and even more if you broaden the field to look at various think tanks and health care experts.

What's even worse for you is that paying for it is simply not a problem, as R157 is absolutely right. If we take the money we currently pay for health care and redirect it to Medicare for All, it's fully paid for with extra left over. What you're really whining about is how to make the transition.

What's funny about your conversation in this thread is that your talking points have been shot down, one after another, so you have to keep moving those goalposts. At this point, as noted above, if all you've got left is the messaging and politics aspect of this, you've already lost this debate.

Only problem with your scenario, R160, is that there is a huge, powerful bureaucracy employed by the insurance industry, including very wealthy and powerful CEO's and their minions, who are going to fight any Medicare for all plan to the death.

I'm well aware of that, R161, which is why I don't expect Medicare for All to be implemented in the next four years, regardless of who the next president is. But the reality is that health care currently consumes something like 18% of our GDP and is expected to grow to over 22%. That health care is the number one cause of bankruptcy. That between 25,000 and 45,000 people die every year unnecessarily. That employee-provided health care is getting more and more expensive for the workers as employers pass along the ever-increasing costs to them.

At some point, and I'm not predicting when, we will hit the breaking point as what we have right now is both stupid and unsustainable. At that point, the bureaucracy standing in the way will be overridden. The conversation we are having now as a country is a necessary step towards getting to this solution, or some variation thereof. It's now being taken seriously, as it should be. When will the transition occur? Damned if I know but the policy is sound and backed up by ample evidence. All that remains in the way is the politics.

NYT: Bernie Sanders is set to announce today a new plan that proposes wiping out an estimated $81 billion in Americans' existing medical debt. It calls for negotiating and canceling the debts, without specifying a precise mechanism.

If MFA becomes the law of the land million more jobs will open up running it and the first people they will hire are those who worked for the insurance company. They won't be losing their jobs and the new government jobs will come with better benefits, like a good pension. As any retired Federal employee if they don't have a great pension and with MFA they will have great medical insurance too.

Medicare and Medicaid are run extremely well and it's just another right wing scare tactic to say it will be like the DMV. Besides, not all DMVs are a pain in the ass to go to. I go to DMVs in some parts of Long Island NY and I'm in and out in less than half an hour no matter what I'm there for. I also sometimes go to one in Coney Island in Brooklyn, NY and I never have a long wait.

It's actually amazing how well Medicare is run. A year before a person is eligible they start to contact them and the people who work for Medicare are very well trained and informed. By the time your 65th birthday rolls around everything is in place and you hardly have to lift a finger to now be covered by the best insurance out there. If you need a supplemental there are people to help you with that too. Dealing with Federal employees is much better than dealing with city employees, at least in NY. Social Security is very well run as well. It boggles the mind how well this country can handle these programs when tens of millions of people have them. This country doesn't do many things right but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are three that the US shines at. FDR and JBJ not only knew how to get things done for the average American but they knew how to get them done really right. Of Biden, Warren and Sanders I think the only one with the backbone and smarts to get this right is Warren.

R164 you have to be poor to get government supplemental. If you want private supplemental you're going to be paying and it's usually over $100 a month.

R165, my parents have both gone on Medicare over the last couple of years. I'm the one that did all the research for them as to what supplement to get. They got one of the most comprehensive supplement plans (Plan G). My mother's costs $97 a month, my dad's costs $107 a month. Totaled with what they pay monthly for their Medicare premium, their cost is around $240 a month each. For that, they get everything covered 100% minus a $100 annual Medicare deductible. Everything covered. One hundred percent. And, they have to go to the doctor all the time.

Meanwhile, I'm in my 40s. I never use my insurance. The cost of my plan on the ACA, before subsidies, is almost $400 a month. For $400 a month, I have a $6000 deductible and shit coverage after that so I never, ever use it. I will have to be unconscious or dying before I go to a doctor because with a $6000 deductible, I might as well not even be covered. The one prescription I had to get a few years ago wasn't covered even though it was an antibiotic that had been on the market for 50 years. So, for the thousands upon thousands that the insurance company has taken over the years, I've literally had nothing covered.

Which one sounds like the better value to you?

Even the right wing Mercatus study concluded Medicare for All would cost $2-3 trillion less than if we continued our current system

R166 The situation you just describe is the reality for tens of millions of adults in non-Medicaid expansion states. They’re too poor to qualify for the ACA subsidies but The way that the affordable care act was envisioned, which would have allowed adults without any disabilities or dependents to enroll in Medicaid, was shut down by all of the non-expansion red states. The $6000 deductible in all the marketplace plans means that they might as well not have any insurance so they just go without.

Something surely needs done, but I think that M4A probably would suck for the first 40 years until they figure out what they are doing. At that point, I'd be dead, so I don't care.

Medicare pretty much hit the ground running and never ran into any problems. Sometimes the government knows what it's doing, at least when Democrats are in charge a la FDR and LBJ and their people. Without Republican sabotage you'd be shocked at how well this country can run.

r170, if people would just look at Japan, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, they would notice that it is definitely possible for government programs to be run well. Those countries aren't perfect, but they definitely have well-run programs.

Medicare for all is the way to go.

All we have to do is look to our own country. Medicare and Medicaid AND Social Security are extraordinarily well run programs. The USA doesn't do many things right, but when they get it right they really get it right.

A new poll by a firm linked to Biden is testing messages designed to undercut support among Democrats for Medicare for All

Why do we even pretend private insurance is run well??

Try to get them to get your address right or to record correctly that your payment was sent in. They can’t even get their list of doctors updated.

That's very sneaky of Biden. I like him less and less by the day. Of course if he's the nominee I'll vote for him but it will be another one of those voting while holding my nose deals.

Can you imagine never having to deal with an insurance company again? Being able to go to whichever doctor you want because they all take Medicare? Doctors not each having to hire four people to run their coding/billing department because they won't have to keep track of how 200 different insurance companies work? Having how much you pay determined solely by how much you make? Being able to leave your shitty job whenever you want to and not have to worry about what you're going to do about health insurance? Never having to worry about any of your loved ones dying because some treatment isn't covered by their insurance? And on and on.

[quote]Being able to leave your shitty job whenever you want to and not have to worry about what you're going to do about health insurance?

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

[quote] if people would just look at Japan, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, they would notice that it is definitely possible for government programs to be run well. Those countries aren't perfect, but they definitely have well-run programs.

The countries that have functioning programs have small populations of under 10 million people. Once the population grows above 20 million, the program begins to deteriorate and fail, the UK's NHS being a prime example. In Australia, with a pop of 24 mil, people are advised to take out private, supplemental health insurance, to avoid long waits and for better quality medical service.

Japan with a pop of 126 mil is an exception because of its homogenous social composition and cooperative, collaborative social structure and culture. Unlike the US.

R176, I hope if Warren or Sanders is the nominee instead of Biden that they can actually beat Trump. That's my only criteria.

[quote]If MFA becomes the law of the land million more jobs will open up running it and the first people they will hire are those who worked for the insurance company. They won't be losing their jobs and the new government jobs will come with better benefits, like a good pension. As any retired Federal employee if they don't have a great pension and with MFA they will have great medical insurance too.

R164, Medicare is administered by private insurance companies. It always has been. All those new jobs won't be Federal jobs, they'll be jobs at BC/BS, Aetna, or whoever wins the contract in a given region. When you contact the Medicare call center for help, you're not talking to a Federal employee. You're talking to an employee of the insurance company who has the contract for your region.

I do agree that Medicare is generally well run, considering how huge it is and the complexities of the issues it must deal with. Social Security, too, although you'll find plenty of recipients who'll disagree.

R92, it would be impractical to offer a choice between Medicare and employer-provided insurance because employers would quickly drop their insurance or convert their plans to Medigap-type coverage. Why would employers continue to pay huge premiums for employee health insurance if the government will cover most of the services?

In fact, that’s one of the more likely scenarios for a M4A plan – the government expands Medicare as it is now, warts and all, to everyone. Employers get a windfall in the form of reduced benefit expenses, and some of that windfall, by law, must be spent on providing supplementary coverage in place of the previous full coverage.

Another added benefit to Medicare for All that I've never heard mentioned. By destroying the link between employers and insurance, employers will have to treat workers better in order to keep them.

Everyone knows at least a few people who work where they work because of the insurance. If all those people could save up six months worth of expenses and then tell their employer to fuck off without the worry of going without insurance, a whole lot of them would. Employers would figure out pretty quickly that they need to incentivize in other ways to keep their workers happy.

And, I swear, if the fucking unions turn on the Democrats for fighting for insurance for everyone that might impact their Cadillac plans, they can fuck themselves. Unions can pay for Cadillac supplement plans or gold-plated hospitals or something else but unions should want what's best for the working people of this country and that's MfA.

R183, also, you'll see a one-time surge in retirements as people in their early 60s, who are only hanging onto their full-time jobs for the insurance, choose to retire or switch to lower-stress or part-time work. This will benefit younger employees, as at least some of those jobs will still exist after the occupant retires.

^^The phrase "... who are only hanging onto their ... jobs for the insurance" should not be set off by commas in R184. I don't mean that all FT workers over 60 are just hanging on for the insurance.

R182, it's unlikely that there will be a "windfall" for employers if they replace their company insurance plans with M4A. Instead of paying a portion of the employees' benefits on the private plan, the employer's portion of the medicare tax would increase significantly.

R186, Good point. Yes, that would be likely. I should have said that SOME employers would get a windfall. My employer, for example, provides very generous medical benefits and pays most of the cost. They might actually save money, whereas someplace like Walmart would end up paying more in taxes than they spend on benefits now. This could be a problem if employers use the Medicare tax as an excuse to convert even more jobs to "independent contractors" - unless the tax is applied to all payments to individuals.

I support M4A in principle, but I'm not as hopeful as some of the comments here that it can be accomplished with no pain to anyone except the rich. There will be a long, tough period of adjustment. For example, health care is the largest employer in the country. I don't think we know for sure what effect M4A will have on that industry.

Trump has his own plan for Medicare, which involves privatizing large parts of it. The Executive Order he signed last week will spike premiums, expose seniors to surprise bills, restrict doctor choice and expand a tax shelter for the rich.

This is a really interesting one:

[quote]Another part of the order asks the HHS secretary to align Medicare’s reimbursement rates with the prices paid by Medicare Advantage plans and commercial insurers.

Private insurers cannot compete with Medicare on pricing, as we've seen multiple times over the years. So rather than admit that Medicare can do it better, they're going to try to hamstring Medicare so that it no longer does better than private insurance.

I cannot imagine that this will go forward unchallenged.

Well, it's telling that Trump didn't make a big deal out of this, as he does with most of his Executive Orders. They're trying to do it under the radar.

[quote]Um, [R125], how much does that drug cost in Canada? In European countries? You really don't know anything at all about this topic, do you?

In 2015-2016, Ontario spent as much as $290-million on new hepatitis C drugs for more than 3,700 patients, according to a spokesman for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.Feb 21, 2017

Apparently, I know more than you, r126. That's, 78,378.37 per person, in Canada. My point stands, you need to reform our healthcare system first before moving to MFA or you'll be forever paying through the nose and happily paying much higher taxes than ylu should.

Hey, r126, here's the cost of that same drug in the EU...

[quote]Twelve weeks of treatment will now cost 41,000 euros ($51,373) before tax, against 56,000 euros previously. In the United States, where Sovaldi's high price has sparked controversy and pushed up insurance companies' costs, a 12-week course costs $84,000, or $1,000 per pill.

So, it looks like it's you who doesn't have a clue.

More clue than you, apprarently, R191 / R192, since a) this is an outlier, which is why you're so bent on pushing it rather than talking about overall drug costs across the entire spectrum, and b) because you missed this one little tidbit of information:

[quote]However, the real price the government paid for those medications is almost certainly lower because of undisclosed discounts.

As for your second article, since you had to go back to 2014 to find something, anything, that would at least sound good, forgive me if I remain unimpressed, particularly since, at that time, the cost in the U.S. was 50% higher, which basically proves my point.

So, back on topic: what are the actual prices paid by those countries with national health care or national health insurance across their entire formulary and how do those prices compare to those paid in the U.S.?

Overpriced new drugs are an outlier,  r193?  Oh, my sides.   The price of Keytruda was so high in The Netherlands that they stopped providing for a while.

I guess you haven't been following the news in the wake of Shkreli.  It's the norm, particularly when it comes to cancer drugs.

So I gave you two articles and you're bitching about one of them being from 2014...then prove it wrong I stead of whining. Bet you can't.

So again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

R194, I really don't know why you bother to post, since you continue to prove my point with every single post. Every major industrialized nation is doing better in these negotiations than is the U.S., as your own links demonstrate, which means that, just as I pointed out, switching to Medicare for All would offer significant advantages in dealing with the issue of higher drug prices.

[quote]So I gave you two articles and you're bitching about one of them being from 2014...then prove it wrong I stead of whining.

I already did, since your own link proved you wrong: "particularly since, at that time, the cost in the U.S. was 50% higher, which basically proves my point." Apparently, we can add inability to read to an inability to accept reality.

[quote]So, back on topic: what are the actual prices paid by those countries with national health care or national health insurance across their entire formulary and how do those prices compare to those paid in the U.S.?

*crickets*

Just one option, among several, that a Medicare for All plan would include:

[quote]The Medicare for All Act includes a key provision, modeled after the Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act, which would lower drug prices for all Americans by allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices with corporations.

[quote]And if a corporation refused to lower the price and threatened patients’ access to the medication, generic competition would be allowed using a competitive license.

[quote]Every major industrialized nation is doing better in these negotiations than is the U.S., as your own links demonstrate, which means that, just as I pointed out, switching to Medicare for All would offer significant advantages in dealing with the issue of higher drug prices.

I've been waiting for you to post something like this. India pays $4 for the Hepatitis C drug that Canada pays $78,000 and the EU pays $58,000 for. So Canada negotiated down a few thousand dollars. Wow. And the EU negotiated down $20,000. Wow, both are such great negotiators that they are still paying through the nose AND they did this with the backing of a universal healthcare system. Maybe we all should have India do the negotiating.

[quote]So, back on topic: what are the actual prices paid by those countries with national health care or national health insurance across their entire formulary and how do those prices compare to those paid in the U.S.? *crickets*

The prices that I gave you were the ACTUAL prices paid by those countries, that part was already answered. If you are talking about what is the actual cost to patients then its irrelevant since you are still going to be paying higher taxes for drugs that are overpriced in a universal health care system (and I believe Canada's system doesn't cover drugs so that $78k is the patient cost). Or, as in the case of the Netherlands and Keytruda, just not have the drug available to you because of cost

In the US, you have manufacturer programs where a person will pay nothing to a much lower out of pocket cost but insurance will bear the difference. So it's either higher taxes or higher premiums either way you're going to pay.

I'm not going to sit here and go drug by drug. If you want to take the time then do it yourself. And, as I have said multiple times, I'm talking about newer drugs, and the article at the economist backs me up despite all your foot stomping.

[quote]Every major industrialized nation is doing better in these negotiations than is the U.S., as your own links demonstrate, which means that, just as I pointed out, switching to Medicare for All would offer significant advantages in dealing with the issue of higher drug prices.

I've been waiting for you to post something like this. India pays $4 for the Hepatitis C drug that Canada pays $78,000 and the EU pays $58,000 for. So Canada negotiated down a few thousand dollars. Wow. And the EU negotiated down $20,000. Wow, both are such great negotiators that they are still paying through the nose AND they did this with the backing of a universal healthcare system. Maybe we all should have India do the negotiating.

[quote]So, back on topic: what are the actual prices paid by those countries with national health care or national health insurance across their entire formulary and how do those prices compare to those paid in the U.S.? *crickets*

The prices that I gave you were the ACTUAL prices paid by those countries, that part was already answered. If you are talking about what is the actual cost to patients then its irrelevant since you are still going to be paying higher taxes for drugs that are overpriced in a universal health care system (and I believe Canada's system doesn't cover drugs so that $78k is the patient cost). Or, as in the case of the Netherlands and Keytruda, just not have the drug available to you because of cost

In the US, you have manufacturer programs where a person will pay nothing to a much lower out of pocket cost but insurance will bear the difference. So it's either higher taxes or higher premiums either way you're going to pay.

I'm not going to sit here and go drug by drug. If you want to take the time then do it yourself. And, as I have said multiple times, I'm talking about newer drugs, and the article at the economist backs me up despite all your foot stomping.

[quote]The Medicare for All Act includes a key provision, modeled after the Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act, which would lower drug prices for all Americans by allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices with corporations.

[quote]And if a corporation refused to lower the price and threatened patients’ access to the medication, generic competition would be allowed using a competitive license.

You don't need MFA to enact these provisions. If our government was doing its job and didn't capitulate to the pharmaceutical industry then we would be paying lower drug prices and lower premiums NOW. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Oh, and r197, that's just restoring things to pre-2003 when Bush took away the ability of the government to negotiate drug prices. So it's not even a new concept.

[quote]I've been waiting for you to post something like this.

Well, yeah, but that's because you're an idiot. Your numbers are incorrect, of course, as your own link demonstrated and as I pointed out to you above and here:

[quote]However, the real price the government paid for those medications is almost certainly lower because of undisclosed discounts

Just as your own link pointed out to you that the U.S. paid 50% more. You really don't know how to read, do you?

[quote]The prices that I gave you were the ACTUAL prices paid by those countries

No, actually they weren't. And aren't, as I noted above. And my question was about the entire formulary, not a single new drug. You *really* can't read, can you?

[quote]since you are still going to be paying higher taxes for drugs that are overpriced in a universal health care system

Well, since you'll be paying a lot less, I'll take that as a first step, and if we then take the additional step noted above, your point is moot.

[quote]I'm not going to sit here and go drug by drug.

Of course you aren't, because it would show you just how foolish you are. Although, come to think of it, you're doing just fine on that score without that additional incentive.

[quote]I'm talking about newer drugs, and the article at the economist backs me up despite all your foot stomping.

Since your own links do not, in fact, "back you up," I'm afraid that all you're confirming is precisely what I said: you have no idea what you're talking about and you really cannot read.

R202, uh huh, buttercup.

ROFL.... Oh, how predictable. You've just had your ass handed to you, again, and this was the best you could do? That's hilarious. And pathetic.

Do try to do better next time, won't you? I like a little bit more of a challenge. This time, all I had to do was read your own links to you.

[bold]The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All[/bold]

[quote]According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid [italic]combined.[/italic]

From your own link:

[quote]The reform would include benefits more comprehensive than Medicare’s—including adult dental, vision, hearing, and long-term services and supports—with no premiums or cost sharing.

Tell me, do you always have this much trouble reading? They're talking about, essentially, a platinum plan for everyone in the U.S. Other variants on Medicare for All, as expected, come in quite a bit cheaper and cost no more, or cost less, than we pay today in total health care costs, just as advocates have claimed.

Exactly R206! Great post. How many right wing people have left their little bombs to scare people from getting what is best for them on this thread. I feel it in the air, most Americans are getting too smart, or too terrified by the horrible health care in this country to fall for this shit we've been hearing since the 1960s about how terrible government healthcare is when no one would EVER willingly give up Medicare if they have it.

The money Americans would save on healthcare and then truly get the best healthcare in the world, with MFA, would be worth 100 times what little more they might pay in taxes.

I've been mostly on private insurance, but also on Medicaid and now on Medicare and Medicare is so fucking much better than either that their is no comparison. Although Medicaid was not bad, not at all. I would take it over private/employer insurance if those two were my only choice.