General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow would Medicare for All Work? Medicare today is viable because people have paid 30+ years into
it in most cases, and then when they turn 65 start to receive those benefits. Even then most people still pay a premium, plus extra for a supplemental and drug plan, unless they elect an Advantage Plan.
If we have Medicare for All, most of those folks less than 55 have not paid into Medicare for 30 years, like those currently have done.
So those folks in that category will essentially be buying into Medicare, and paying a premium through taxes significantly more than those currently on Medicare, because they haven't been paying into for 30 years. Will that increase in taxes/premium, be more or less than those currently covered by their employer, or if they have to get it on their own.
I would think whatever way it is structured, the only way it would fly is if it doesn't adversely affect those already covered by Medicare, and the only way that is achieved is if those buying into Medicare pay higher taxes
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blues Heron
(5,939 posts)That bloated behemoth has been sucking us dry for decades.
Meadowoak
(5,555 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm all for cutting military spending, but that's not going to get us there or even close.
Turin_C3PO
(14,016 posts)out of our national budget for healthcare than developed countries with a single payer system? If that’s true, it means we’re doing something wrong and that we should be able to restructure our system to be cheaper without losing quality service.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We don't spend more government money more per capita than any of the single payer countries, but we do spend more government money per capita than some of the mixed-model countries like Norway or Sweden.
There's not some magic restructuring they've done, either; their providers just make a lot less. The average salary for a doctor in Sweden is about $55,000. In the US it's $200,000. It's not brain surgery (pardon the pun) to figure out what the difference there is.
Turin_C3PO
(14,016 posts)Maybe $100,000 would be an acceptable salary for doctors here. Plus programs to forgive their medical school loan debt.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because our providers make twice as much money
Response to Recursion (Reply #20)
ahoysrcsm This message was self-deleted by its author.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm sure they have lots of reasons that they make more. It doesn't change the fact that we pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world.
Response to Recursion (Reply #58)
ahoysrcsm This message was self-deleted by its author.
moondust
(20,000 posts)According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, several countries have truly achieved universal coverage with 100 percent of their population covered.
Today, 18 countries offer true universal health coverage: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
In addition, several other countries have achieved near-universal coverage with more than 98 percent of their population insured, including Austria, Belgium, Japan, and Spain.
In contrast, only a little over 91 percent of the U.S. population was insured in 2016, and Gallup tracking indicated that the percentage of Americans with health coverage had dropped to under 88 percent by late-2017.
~
http://www.verywellhealth.com/difference-between-universal-coverage-and-single-payer-system-1738546
Maybe Congress or somebody could task a working group to study the various affordable health care programs around the world and figure out what would work best in the U.S. Then let people vote on it. Should have been done decades ago.
still_one
(92,299 posts)touch Medicare, but add a single payer like Canada for those under 65
OnlinePoker
(5,724 posts)In my community of over 19,000, there are two doctors in a walk-in clinic. People have to line up first thing in the morning and hope to get a spot for the day. If not, try again tomorrow. The big issue is medical students doing their practicum in a GP's office see the issues there and opt to become specialists rather than have the headaches of a family practice. The BC government is trying to address the issues, but right now, GPs only get $30 per patient no matter how long the appointment lasts. From that, they're expected to pay the overhead for their office (staff, rent, equipment, etc) and, if they're relatively new to the profession, student loan debt. As a patient, it sometimes feels like you're on a conveyor belt when you need to see your doctor and you don't know if you're getting the care you need. The newer GPs are also not working as many hours as their older compatriots, preferring a more balanced work/life way of living.
still_one
(92,299 posts)Talking with some folks under the NHS they related to me it can be quite frustrating, and they indicated to me that those who can’t wait find a private MD
Sancho
(9,070 posts)First, all those premiums now paid to private insurance would go to medicare...much more efficient and far less confusing.
Second, and this is usually underestimated - US health care salaries and hospital costs are way too high! Doctors would make less, hospitals would make less (most are for profit), drug companies would make less, and insurance companies would not be out of control. Instead of a plastic surgeon on every corner - we'd have family doctors. Medical schools would have less incentive to their current restrictions on the number of doctors. Etc., etc., etc....
Third, we'd all be healthier!! That would reduce costs in the long run!
Damn....I'll miss all those commercials for "vein disease" and "xylem miracle drug" and "have you been harmed by your medical device"!!
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)And generous small business loans for them to start a practice. All in return for taking on Medicare for All patients.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Except, they wouldn't do that on their own, not without a taxation and spending regime to make that happen.
Some companies pay (or subsidize) their employee's premiums. And it's a huge amount of money we're talking about: 82% of private insurance premiums are paid by employers, which comes to roughly $1 trillion, with a "t". How do you get $1 trillion from businesses to Medicare? Do you only tax the companies that were paying for health insurance before? Do you make it industry-wide and slam it on the businesses that already couldn't handle that expense? And if we tax it, does that mean the employees themselves get no wage windfall?
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)will see to that.
sl8
(13,841 posts)Back in 2005, the GAO reported that 18% of U.S. hospitals were for-profit.
Have you seen different or more current figures?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05743t.pdf
In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general hospitals in the United States, the majority—about 62 percent—were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent). States varied—generally by region of the country—in their percentages of nonprofit hospitals (see fig. 1). For example, states in the Northeast and Midwest had relatively high concentrations of nonprofit hospitals, whereas in the South the
concentration was relatively low.
[...]
DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)UPMC is a non-profit medical provider, but it makes plenty of profit.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...a portion of what is currently going to private insurers goes to the government. That would increase the money going towards Medicare to accommodate the expansion. The government being the primary sole insurer should be able to do things more cheaply keeping those "premiums" lower.
At least, that's how I understand it. The arguments against it make a certain amount sense but ultimately come down to suggesting people don't realize how much is actually being paid for their insurance by their employer. Some people have "free" insurance through their employer...but all that means is that their employer is paying the entirety of their premiums for the year. So someone is paying for it.
MfA would probably benefit me as even with $6,500 paid towards my insurance through my employer I still drop $12,000 a year from my paychecks for insurance. That means the total cost for my families plan is $18,500. Meanwhile, the individual plans where I work only cost those employees $50 a month. It's pretty obscene but that's actually cheaper than if I were to try and buy insurance myself.
The ideal legislation to bring MfA about would contain language that requires employers to redirect the money they currently use to subsidize their employees insurance plans into their employees paychecks. That would offset somewhat the increase in taxes that would be required for MfA to work.
Everyman Jackal
(271 posts)Employers figure out how much they can pay a worker. That is the gross amount. Then they subtract everything they have to pay for having that worker work for them. What is left is what they pay their worker hourly or a salary. Simple, let's say that an employer can afford to pay a worker $18/hour. The employer's cost except pay is $6/hour. The worker is then paid $12/hour. That is a very simplified example, but I think I got it right.
edhopper
(33,596 posts)Shift of that money, through taxation to Medicare. Except the costs will be lower and the payments for people much lower.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Remember, Medicare is just insurance, it's not care. Lots of the providers that provide Medicare services are for-profit.
edhopper
(33,596 posts)So?
Goodheart
(5,334 posts)Just like many other countries.
Reduce military spending.
Problem solved.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You'd have to write a tax policy to make that happen. Right now the spending on premiums are very uneven: some companies pay a whole lot and others pay very little. Who gets taxed, and how much, topay for the
new Medicare premiums?
snowybirdie
(5,231 posts)Thought to what happens to all the insurance company workers if Medicare for all was enactedl? Thousands of workers would be displaced.
Johonny
(20,862 posts)You know people actually delivering service (life saving and change service) rather than bean counting. We'd be replacing mostly unfulfilling jobs for fulfilling ones.
forthemiddle
(1,381 posts)I’m a coder, and I spend my days reading medical records.
I for one, DO NOT want to replace my so called “unfulfilling job” to a “fulfilling” one!
Thank You very much!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)who is throwing out an immense amount of detail now, there is no way a final product would look exactly like that in the end. There will be hearings and debates and compromises.
And, it all certainly would scare the general public at this time. Same with free college for all. To me, the dippiest one last night made the best point - Savannah asked - many people are happy with the economy now - aren't you worried some big spending plans would make them think - uh - oh ?
What is so wrong with being more general? "We WILL work together to make health care and college more affordable There are a lot of ideas to pursue and pick the best ideas from."
Republicans would NEVER put it out there early how much rich people would gain from tax cuts.
still_one
(92,299 posts)primaries, because people throw Medicare For All out here, and I have no idea if some even understand the way Medicare works
It is a discussion point to try understand our various takes on it, and hopefully gain knowledge about what is involved
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)still_one
(92,299 posts)understanding, and how others view it
Thanks
SWBTATTReg
(22,154 posts)with still nothing to replace it yet (Obama Care/ACA)...the republicans are all hot air, and provide nothing to the conversation other than their health care which is get sick and die...I remember that one Congressman who held up a sign stating this very thing in Congress one time...it was great!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)still_one
(92,299 posts)that most have been paying into for 30+ years and assume coverage when they turn 65, unless they fit into one of the exceptions where they can get covered earlier.
If I understand it, you are saying Medicare For All would be structured as a single payer system for everyone that is financed by taxes, and that is fine, however, those who are 65 or older have already paid into Medicare
Wouldn't it make more sense instead of "co-mingling" with the current Medicare system, to setup a separate single payer system for those less than 65?
That is where I would like to see
Mariana
(14,858 posts)but it's not like the money went into a savings account or anything. What's happening is the people who aren't on Medicare, but who are paying the tax, are helping to pay for its current expenditures.
If Medicare (as it is now) were to be expanded to cover everyone, the Medicare tax rate could be raised to pay for it.
moose65
(3,167 posts)Medicare is funded by CURRENT workers, not the people who are actually on Medicare. So your solution would be for all of us who are working to continue to pay Medicare taxes to support Medicare, and then also to pay extra taxes for our own separate health insurance? That seems needlessly complicated to me.
Vinca
(50,299 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I doubt those premiums and/or taxes are going to be anywhere as cheap as people think/hope.
In any event, we need to have universal coverage -- with subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance.
The biggest problem with M4A is that so many people right now are relatively happy with their employer insurance. Forcing them to take Medicare -- no matter how good it will be for society in the long run -- will be seen as cramming it down their throat. Any problems that occur -- including costing more than politicians are telling them -- will be blamed on government.
That's the main reason I think the Public Option is the best way forward. If buying into Medicare is as good as we think/hope, people will gravitate toward it quickly. In a few years, we'll be down to 20% or so left with commercial insurance, and it'll be easy to convert them (assuming the experiment works as hoped).
still_one
(92,299 posts)add a universal care/single payer option for those under 65
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)still_one
(92,299 posts)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)because of non-Medicare patients in any hospital or doctor's office. Their insurance pays more than what Medicare will reimburse. They subsidize Medicare patients, in effect, allowing medical service providers to take in a fair share of Medicare patients without going broke.
That was Delaney's point last night, and I have seen no refutation of it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)have an MRI, etc., do we need new meds that really aren’t much of an improvement over cheaper meds, and much more?
I kind of think not, but not sure healthcare industry — or patients — are ready for the cuts being paid at Medicare rates would likely cause.
I know for a fact docs can live comfortably on Medicare rates, they just don’t like it.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)We could lower their pay to $100k or maybe $50k. We could pay them $15 an hour.
The lower we go, the more smart people will simply choose a different career that DOES pay $200k+.
Oh we'll still have plenty of doctors. The ranks of the best and smartest will be filled by those who are aren't.
Me? Id rather have my doc making $200k as opposed to one that had to weigh $15/hr offers froms Walmart and Cleveland clinic.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)in terms of education, training and raw intelligence.
Right now our absolute best and brightest go to medicine. Where would they go if that much money were available elsewhere? Say weapons development? Finance? Corporate executives?
We have the power to change all that if we really want to.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Today’s physicians don’t sacrifice like decades ago.
They have coverage and work less hours; many no longer go see patients in hospitals, using hospitalists or non-physician practitioners; they can have their student debt all but discharged with a few years in rural area or even innercities; they get paid much better in residencies; they can go into research or even finance, disease management; or just about anything else; they can move and go anywhere they want to practice; 40 hours is not that unusual, etc.
Folks will line up for medical school or training for Physician Assistants or Nurse Practitioners. Have no fear.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)There will never be a shortage. Our best and brightest will find other fields, and we will simply have less than the best and brightest in the medical field.
And no not ALL would go to weapons development. Most wouldn't. But they will go where the money is. Just like they do now. Just imagine how much better are smartphones will get! (/sarcasm)
They are smart people. To smart to work for drastically less.
misanthrope
(7,419 posts)Maybe. I think those with the predisposition and gifts for it do so but not all intellectual gifts are identical.
Richard Feynman was a pretty bright guy. He didn't go into medicine. There are other highly intelligent people who don't simply choose a profession based on how high its salary is but more on how they feel about it or the sense of fulfillment it gives them.
And that's putting aside the physicians we all encounter who might have been bright enough but they display a near callousness for patients and other people, seemingly attracted to the wealth and power alone. Their issues aren't that they were smart enough but that they make poor doctors based on other factors.
moose65
(3,167 posts)People who have paid into Medicare for 30+ years were not paying for their own benefits. While they were paying their Medicare taxes, they were paying for the healthcare of the people who were currently on Medicare. Then, when they retired and started to receive their Medicare benefits, their benefits were (and are) being paid for by people who are currently paying into the system. That's how it works - you don't pay for your OWN benefits. There's not some little account somewhere with your name on it, and you don't get back just what you paid in.
As an aside, my grandmother passed away in 2012 at the age of 92. She was born in 1920 and never had a job in her entire life, so she never paid a cent into Medicare. However, when she turned 65 she was covered by Medicare. Medicare is not dependent on ability to pay or whether you ever paid any money into it.
I think our way to Medicare for All will have to be incremental and it will take a long, long time to implement. First, the ACA exchanges should have a public option that people can purchase, instead of buying expensive health insurance from private companies. Then, people who are 60 or over should be able to opt in to Medicare. And how about offering Medicare on the other end of life, too - we should cover children from birth up to age 18.
DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)All the social entitlement programs work the same way, they are paid for by current contributions. BTW, this is a great argument for encouraging, not discouragng, immigration. As the US birthrate falls and the population ages, immigrants can fill the gap and help sustain social entitlements by working and paying into the system.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Same way it did on day #1. From current revenues.
It's not as if the government saves up 30 years of premiums.
When medicaid started in 1965, some folks had to wait 30 years to get benefits. Others got benefits within a few months. The average, right in the middle.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)OHIP works well over there.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I just qualified for it. I paid taxes for it for 40 years. Plus, it costs. It's not free, like people think, although the cost is reasonable, compared to private insurance.
If it works like the ACA, they'll take Medicare and merge it with other coverage, and they'll end up tripling the premiums on seniors, like they did for the ACA. Screw the older, healthy people, so that they can "donate" that money to give health coverage to someone else. Not only just coverage...but BETTER coverage than the older person can afford to pay for herself. Totally screwing the older person out of decent coverage, even though she's PAYING more for it.
still_one
(92,299 posts)is for those under 65 having a single payer, public option type system
moose65
(3,167 posts)That’s something that a lot of people don’t get. You didn’t pay for 40 years so you could have Medicare now. You paid for other people’s benefits while you were working. And now, other people are paying for your benefits. You don’t get more Medicare cause you paid in for 40 years while someone who paid in for 20 gets less. It doesn’t work that way.
DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)Employer-based health insurance came about because of the wage/price controls imposed during WWII. Companies couldn't give employees raises, so they gave beneifts like health insurance instead. Over the years, unions negotiated benefits sometimes in lieu of better wages and the system of employer-based health insurance became ingrained. Now health insurance is a burden on businesses and it also can tie a person to a job just because the job comes with health insurance. It's no longer a sustainable business model. Employees are paying for that situation by having to now pay part of the premium or higer premiums, having to forego wage increases, agreeing to two-tier wage systems where new employees get less and so on.
Moving to medicare-for-all would free up businesses to put more money toward wages, thus helping employees pay any increases in medicare premiums, and employees would be free, or freer, to change jobs knowing they'll have health insurance regardless. Right now the medicare tax is 1.4%. You could increase that contribution or you could use the current medicare income scale where the under a certain threshold, the monthly premium is $134 and rises based on income bracket ala federal income tax brackets. You make more, you pay more, but this is still cheap especially given all that medicare covers.
My guess is insurers would be happy to get out of the health insurance business since most are complaining about not making money on it. Hospitals could start paying doctors a salary, just like the Mayo and Cleveland clinics do now. They wouldn't have to play the whack-a-mole reimbursement game, ordering marginally useful tests and procedures that are covered to pay for ones that aren't. Everything could operate more efficiently and effectively. What is not love about that?
still_one
(92,299 posts)would be happy to get out of the business. They make a hell of a lot of money. Just look at the United Healthcare and BlueCross/Shield as two examples. They are NOT losing money.
In fact, even with Medicare, it is the private insurance companies that are dealing with the supplemental and Advantage Plans, so even with Medicare for All, they would not be eliminated.
DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)by denying or limiting claims. That's the rub. Insurers have left ACA markets because the ACA forces them to take clients with pre-existing conditions and pay the subsequent claimsn- those claims play havoc with the "bottom line". With medicare for all, the financial risk the sickest people pose should be much, much smaller since everyone will now be covered and paying into the same system.
I could see the private health insurance market being just medi-gap/supplement policies, that are already tightly regulated.
Further, Warren has a plan that calls for investment in gov't/gov't funded research that would be available to anyone willing to create and keep jobs here in the US. The teaching and research hospitals and medical schools would be unaffected, even have additional gov't support.
graeme_macquarrie
(29 posts)Having worked in the industry, (health insurance), for over two decades, I can tell you that health insurance companies are heavily regulated by state insurance commissioners. Health insurers must file rates and have those rates approved by the state commissions, much like public utilities are regulated. They don't get to charge what they want will-nilly, or deny claims for no reason.
Insurance policies are contracts between the insured and the insuror, and are enforceable in a court of law.
Even more regulations were imposed federally by the PPACA. Insurors do not deny claims to reap profits. Rates are capped by state insurance commissions. If they have too much "profit" their rates are cut, or not allowed to increase. Under the PPACA, insurors must refund premiums if the do not pay out a minimum percentage of premiums collected, I believe it's 85%.
Also, those private insurors also do all claims and payment administration for Medicare and Medicaid under contracts with the federal and indivdual state governments
Insurors, at least the not-for-profit ones that I worked for did need to maintain reserves, dollars, for adverse events, since rates are set prospectively, and you can't go back and collect more money if the rates charged do not meet the claims expenses actually incurred- in other words an adverse actuarial event.
To provide an accurate history-
The first Health Insurance cooperative, Blue Cross of Texas, was formed in Dallas Texas in 1929 by the Baylor University medical facilities to provide pre-paid hospitalization coverage, so well before WWII. Blue Shield, providing physician payments was founded a decade later.
DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)of dollars in cash. I remember Rendell making that a point of his campaign for governor to make BCBS spend it on care.
I've been dealing with insurance companies for the past decade while navigating the decline and passing of several relatives. I've gotten plenty of coverage denial letters and made my share of phone calls trying to explain why whatever was denied should be covered. I'm sure it's 10x s worse for doctors, hospitals, rehabilition and nursing homes trying to get reimbursement. IMHO, it's the biggest reason the US health care industry is so expensive and inefficient. Those experiences have convinced me that insurers deny claims when they can and count on the insured not to go through the hassle to fight the denial and just pay out of pocket.
While insurers are regulated, that doesn't mean they don't use every tool they have to pay out as little as possible.
I recall insurers howling when the ACA upped the percent of premiums that had to spent on care to 80% and 85% (large markets). Just for comparison, medicare's overhead is, iirc, 4%.
graeme_macquarrie
(29 posts)Medicare isn't required to maintain reserves, since it draws directly from the U.S. Treasury to pay claims. Better than 50% of Medicare dollars come from the general fund. Medicare does not have to live within limitations of premiums collected.
I was a Medicare Hearing Officer for a number of years, presiding over administrative hearings on claims denied based on medical necessity, Medicare regulations or payment limitations or in some cases poor medical practice or over provision of services. Medicare denies claims regularly too.
Medicare, (HHS), contracts all it's claims processing, data processing and medical administration out to large insurance companies such as CIGNA, Blue Cross and Blue Shield and United HealthCare. All Medicare enrollment, premium billing and collection, patient tracking and communication are actually done by the Social Security Administration, so yes their expenses look low
DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)that's why he was so angry about BCBS having that much money sitting around not paying for care.
I understand Medicare contracts out functions. That is a feature of republican budgets. They don't believe in hiring federal civil servants when they could hire private companies to do the same job for more money. I say that as a retired civil servant who has seen this first-hand. I personally don't think private health insurer employees such as you apparently are should be deciding who does and does not get care. Employees of private health insurers have an incentive to deny coverage because you represent companies who are in the insurance business to make profits, not provide care.
I also understand Medicare denies claims, but that is based on rules enacted by Congress, not by a profit motive.
I get that you've worked in the insurance industry and bring that perspective to the table, but, imho, private health insurance isn't working and has needlessly complicated health care here in the US. That's why things need to change dramatically.
graeme_macquarrie
(29 posts)That's because the federal government was incapable of developing the enrollment, claims processing operations and claims payment functions in time to roll out the program in 1966. That was under a Democratic administration. Enrollment, premium collection and other functions went to SSA, the claims and payment functions went to Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans across the nation.
It has remained contracted out since then under both parties budgets because of capabilities and expertise, not some nefarious motive.
Private health insurance employees do not determine who does or does not receive care. Health insurance payments are made retrospectively after care is provided and billed. Insurance company employees don't walk into a hospital or doctor's office and prevent you from receiving care.
Insurance is a shared risk product. It is a contract to provide payment for costs if certain events occur. If a health insurance company violates that contract you can legally enforce it. People constantly confuse the provision of a healthcare service with the payment for such services.
If a health care provider, physician or hospital, refuses to provide treatment because of a patient's inability to pay, that is not a private health insurance issue, but one much deeper.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans are chartered by state, so the question that Governor Rendell should have asked is how many billions is the plan paying out in claims and how many days or months, or years of claims payments do those reserves represent? Generally, if the insurance regulators in the state determine they are excessive, premium reductions or refunds are ordered. Did that happen or was this another political sound bite?
By the way my experience was not just in "private health insurance"
I worked for and with:
Medicare Intermediaries and carriers;
Medicaid Fiscal Agents;
State Medicaid agencies;
HHS (HCFA);
Indian Health Services;
Federal Employees Program, (federal government employee health program)
My perspective is much broader than working in the industry- I've been both sides of the issues for more than 20 years of my career.
Left to do other things that made me happier.
You could end all private insurance and government payment programs tomorrow, and it would not change your ability to obtain healthcare. The infrastructure and professionals to provide those services still exist
What is the key component that might be missing? Hint it's a nearly $4 trillion dollar industry.....
Response to still_one (Original post)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
still_one
(92,299 posts)5starlib
(191 posts)There's no idealism here. There's too much money to be had in our profit healthcare system. And regular folks don't want to give a dime to help their neighbors, even though it sounds 'nice'. People are inherently selfish for the common good. That's why MFA won't work in the end. Too many stakeholders have too much lose. I'm not optimistic. I wish we were more like Europeans in that regard.
Volaris
(10,273 posts)To most working people, when placed against the costs of private, for profit health insurance....especially if the federal minimum wage is kicked to 9 or 10 dollars an hour. Yeah, you're gonna pay the extra 2 dollars per hour back to the treasury, but for that you're gonna get to go to the Dr when your ass needs to, and over the long term that contributes to lower overall national healthcare costs because you're getting to do the 'preventitive maintenance' you need to NOT have a fifty thousand dollar heart attack at 60.
I think a wise addendum to a national healthcare law would be to subsidize a local gym membership for anyone who wanted one, and a way to only charge peeps half the retail cost for organic or raw foods (so that if you're choosing to eat that way with the food stamps you're getting, it buys twice as much as the junk you could otherwise purchase).