- 18,984
If there is Medicare for all then why wouldn't it broaden to market for Medicare supplements and MA plans?
Will Medicare Business End when Healthcare is Nationalized in the USA?
- Thread starter J2727
- Start date
Under Bernie's new plan there would not be any copays for Dr visits, hospital stays, etc. He didn't say how they would pay for it though. Read in Vermont when he wanted to do this the income tax and payroll tax were both going to go up close to double digits so they scrapped it.
Medicare for all I'd think we'd be ok.
Some seem to think it would be Medicaid for all. Then we're screwed.
Some people also believe in the tooth fairy, Medicaid for all is not happening. Whatever they do it will be similar to now. Free ride for low income, and taxpayers above poverty pay more and more.
I think some of the talk of Medicaid for all on this board is driven by people that would like to have it for themselves.
The bill has 100% coverage for all but it's highly unlikely it could pass, IMO (and I'm a Democrat at heart). How would they get providers to sign off universally on accepting lower reimbursement rates for all patients?
What is more likely, I would think, is a 'Medicaid for All' base for healthcare with private plans available for people who want stronger networks-insurance companies could provide a PPO network, for example, to pay the non-'Medicaid for All' costs.
All of this is a WAG, of course, we'll see what happens as it unfolds.
- 503
If you are a tax payer you would not want to pay the huge increase in your taxes to fund Medicare for all. Doctors now are unhappy with Medicare reimbursements. Would the reimbursements be any higher if we had Medicare for all, they would have to be in order for doctors to keep their practice.
Residentzombie
Expert
- 89
Exactly. Workers are paying Medicare taxes now for those on Medicare who are 65 and older as of now. It's a pyramid scheme. If everyone where to go on Medicare, the costs of Medicare coverage and/or the taxes paid by workers for the Medicare program would be insanely high. This would further wipe out the take home pay of those low skilled workers that Democrats claim they care about (which they don't, they just pretend to for votes).
The reason major medical costs are so expensive for U65 is because Medicare underpays doctors and hospitals so much that they bill non-Medicare patients higher rates to pay the bills and staff salaries in addition to malpractice lawsuits and the cost for nurses and doctors to get their education to practice medicine. This would force nurses and doctors to take at least a 50% pay reduction in salary in order for hospitals to remain open. Medicare is already underfunded and the Baby Boomers flooding onto Medicare is causing Medicare to not have enough funds to pay what they pay the way it is now.
You can expect a huge strike or backlash from medical providers if they were forced to accept Medicare's fee schedule for 100% of their patients. Also the nation's best and brightest people will no longer want to spend 10 years of education and occur hundreds of thousands of Dollars of debt to become underpaid government employees. They simply can't stay open at the rate that Medicare reimburses them at. What good is Medicare for all when no doctors will accept it? We must all pray that this doesn't go into effect because most people don't understand the negative effects this will have on the medical industry.
This reminds me of the progressives that thought that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would not have any adversely negative effects on the economy. It's simple mathematics and basic economics. Remember when the citizens of Rome demanded food and circus from the Roman government?
Last edited by a moderator:
Medicare reimbursements will not increase. If anything, DC is trying harder to lower costs by paying for fewer items and shifting the cost to Medicare beneficiaries.
Providers need the higher reimbursements under private health insurance to stay afloat. Cost shifting is here to stay.
There is no reason to believe Medicare supplement pricing for those under 65 will generate lesser premiums than we see now.
Providers need the higher reimbursements under private health insurance to stay afloat. Cost shifting is here to stay.
There is no reason to believe Medicare supplement pricing for those under 65 will generate lesser premiums than we see now.
If Medicare (our tax money) pays for 80% of medical cost for everyone I don't see how people under 65 premiums couldn't go down.
I mean, our taxes will go up and I'm not saying I'm for it. But I don't see how medicare for all could cover a big chunk of medical expenses and not see premiums for the "20%" be rather cheap
Perhaps OP wants to check in with Vermont, Colorado and California to see how this single payer thingy is moving along, once the original slogan gets dissected a bit. Just sone small details such as it can't be paid without massive, and I mean massive tax increases, and that Americans don't want a Washington bearucrat rationing-I mean running- their medical care.
Similar threads
