I don't understand the attraction of Medicare for All. The benefits are not that great. The service will suck. No one has yet talked about the impact on doctors and hospitals. And it is NOT free.
People are so used to having commercial health care coverage they may have forgotten how an old style traditional benefit plan like Medicare works. It covers 80% of what their fee schedule allows. The patient covers 20% of the cost until they reach the out of pocket maximum. That can be thousands of dollars. Did you ever wonder why AARP runs all those Medicare Supplement commercials and makes so much money off that insurance? It's because the Medicare benefits don't cover the costs so people who can afford it buy a Medicare Supplement insurance policy and people who can't end up financially damaged if they have bills or on Medicaid if the costs get really high.
The other thing about the benefits is that Medicare is a program designed for people over 65. How many people over 65 get pregnant? Not too many I suspect. Wonder what the Medicare benefits are for maternity? Wonder what the Medicare benefits are for providing care for young children? We're going to have bureaucrats s in Washington trying determine what to cover and then setting medical policy for benefits they have never provided before. What's to worry, right?
Why do you think Medicare HMOs are so popular? If the traditional Medicare programs is so excellent why do those exist? And speaking of those programs, if we go to Medicare for All are we going to take those programs away from Senior Citizens and put them back in the program they opted out of?
Another reason people choose Medicare HMOs is service. Is it any wonder given the Federal Government's track record. I can't document stories about Medicare service but if it was so good, why do people consider HMOs? But there are other programs that are probably indicative of what to expect from Medicare for All. Social Security - the sister program for Medicare - people are told to apply 3 to 6 months before you turn 65 to get benefits on time. 3 to 6 months! A health insurance company that made you apply six months in advance for benefits would be investigated immediately by the government.
The Veterans Administration is also known for having a massive enrollment backlog. And then when you do enroll, they are so slow to allow you to see the doctor to get care that many have died while waiting.
Back to Social Security, check the yellow pages of any phone book in a big city and you'll see a fair number of lawyers who specialize in fighting the Social Security Administration to get disability benefits. That program provides both cash and Medicare benefits for people so badly injured they cannot work.
Which leads to the question, if the Federal Government says the health care treatment your doctor recommends is not medically necessary, what do you do? If an insurance company does that you can go to the Insurance Department or a myriad of other Federal or State agencies, or you can sue. But what about the Federal Government? Social Security has had that 6 month waiting period since the 80's at least. The Veteran's Administration has been killing people for almost a decade. Bureaucrats have jobs for life almost. Bottom line, if you get bad service from the Government you have no recourse like the options you have against insurance companies.
The people receiving coverage are not the only ones impacted by bad service. What about the hospitals and doctors? Who do they complain to if the Government screws up their claims? Who do they complain to if what the Government pays for a service doesn't cover the cost of providing that service? It's well known that what Government programs reimburse medical providers is less than the cost of care and hospitals and doctors have to make up the short fall by over billing private payers or balance billing patients. How many hospitals and doctors will be able to stay in business if the Government reimbursement falls short of covering their costs?
Now let's talk about cost. Advocates say the cost of Medicare for All is about the same and what is paid for health insurance today by the private sector. I don't have data one way or the other. But look at other costs. Seniors on Medicare pay a pretty hefty premium for Medicare and another hefty premium for a Medicare Supplement policy.
What about the cost to the taxpayer? Now I said I'm not going to debate whether Medicare for All costs more or less than other healthcare costs. But has anyone factored in the job loss that will happen when Medicare for All eliminates the entire health insurance industry? Tens of thousands of Americans will be unemployed. That means higher cost to the government for welfare, food stamps, and other entitlement programs. It also means a massive loss of Federal tax revenues as both the companies and the people employed by them all stop paying taxes. Did anyone add up those costs?
Nope, sorry, like I said at the start - Medicare for All is not for me.
People are so used to having commercial health care coverage they may have forgotten how an old style traditional benefit plan like Medicare works. It covers 80% of what their fee schedule allows. The patient covers 20% of the cost until they reach the out of pocket maximum. That can be thousands of dollars. Did you ever wonder why AARP runs all those Medicare Supplement commercials and makes so much money off that insurance? It's because the Medicare benefits don't cover the costs so people who can afford it buy a Medicare Supplement insurance policy and people who can't end up financially damaged if they have bills or on Medicaid if the costs get really high.
The other thing about the benefits is that Medicare is a program designed for people over 65. How many people over 65 get pregnant? Not too many I suspect. Wonder what the Medicare benefits are for maternity? Wonder what the Medicare benefits are for providing care for young children? We're going to have bureaucrats s in Washington trying determine what to cover and then setting medical policy for benefits they have never provided before. What's to worry, right?
Why do you think Medicare HMOs are so popular? If the traditional Medicare programs is so excellent why do those exist? And speaking of those programs, if we go to Medicare for All are we going to take those programs away from Senior Citizens and put them back in the program they opted out of?
Another reason people choose Medicare HMOs is service. Is it any wonder given the Federal Government's track record. I can't document stories about Medicare service but if it was so good, why do people consider HMOs? But there are other programs that are probably indicative of what to expect from Medicare for All. Social Security - the sister program for Medicare - people are told to apply 3 to 6 months before you turn 65 to get benefits on time. 3 to 6 months! A health insurance company that made you apply six months in advance for benefits would be investigated immediately by the government.
The Veterans Administration is also known for having a massive enrollment backlog. And then when you do enroll, they are so slow to allow you to see the doctor to get care that many have died while waiting.
Back to Social Security, check the yellow pages of any phone book in a big city and you'll see a fair number of lawyers who specialize in fighting the Social Security Administration to get disability benefits. That program provides both cash and Medicare benefits for people so badly injured they cannot work.
Which leads to the question, if the Federal Government says the health care treatment your doctor recommends is not medically necessary, what do you do? If an insurance company does that you can go to the Insurance Department or a myriad of other Federal or State agencies, or you can sue. But what about the Federal Government? Social Security has had that 6 month waiting period since the 80's at least. The Veteran's Administration has been killing people for almost a decade. Bureaucrats have jobs for life almost. Bottom line, if you get bad service from the Government you have no recourse like the options you have against insurance companies.
The people receiving coverage are not the only ones impacted by bad service. What about the hospitals and doctors? Who do they complain to if the Government screws up their claims? Who do they complain to if what the Government pays for a service doesn't cover the cost of providing that service? It's well known that what Government programs reimburse medical providers is less than the cost of care and hospitals and doctors have to make up the short fall by over billing private payers or balance billing patients. How many hospitals and doctors will be able to stay in business if the Government reimbursement falls short of covering their costs?
Now let's talk about cost. Advocates say the cost of Medicare for All is about the same and what is paid for health insurance today by the private sector. I don't have data one way or the other. But look at other costs. Seniors on Medicare pay a pretty hefty premium for Medicare and another hefty premium for a Medicare Supplement policy.
What about the cost to the taxpayer? Now I said I'm not going to debate whether Medicare for All costs more or less than other healthcare costs. But has anyone factored in the job loss that will happen when Medicare for All eliminates the entire health insurance industry? Tens of thousands of Americans will be unemployed. That means higher cost to the government for welfare, food stamps, and other entitlement programs. It also means a massive loss of Federal tax revenues as both the companies and the people employed by them all stop paying taxes. Did anyone add up those costs?
Nope, sorry, like I said at the start - Medicare for All is not for me.
Comments