+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced (/showthread.php?tid=255203)
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - Pam - 04-23-2021
C(-)ris wrote:
[quote=Sarcany]
Our government should implement a single-payer system because access to high quality health care should be a right. (And will be once implemented.)
It shouldn't be a guaranteed right, but everyone should be able to earn the right through employment regardless of if they are working a minimum wage job or make $100k a year.
There are ALWAYS jobs that need to be done and people that are hiring for them. ALWAYS. People might not want to do the jobs or they might not like the pay, but the jobs are there. If tying Universal Healthcare to having ANY job fills those positions and gets people off unemployment that is a win.
Healthcare is humanity. Punishing someone because you’ve deemed them to be undeserving is a road your soul does not want to travel. Working a job for pay that doesn’t cover basic needs is a huge problem in this country. It’s not the workers fault. The system has been designed this way. Thus the wealth gap. The stress, frustration, and demoralized workers catch all the blame.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - deckeda - 04-23-2021
Speedy wrote:
[quote=Robert M]
Speedy,
Please explain what you mean "by a race to the bottom". It's an interesting statement. It just doesn't say anything.
Robert
The state that offers the worst allowable health insurance at the lowest price will get all the business. Every other state would end up following suit or see their current insurance providers go out of business.
Not sure this should be assumed. With competition price drops, but service doesn’t “have” to do likewise.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - Ted King - 04-23-2021
Robert M wrote:
Speedy,
Please explain what you mean "by a race to the bottom". It's an interesting statement. It just doesn't say anything.
Robert
https://www.naic.org/documents/topics_interstate_sales_myths.pdf
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - Lemon Drop - 04-23-2021
$tevie wrote:
I am on Medicare. You have to pay for everything except basic Medicare, and on top of that you have to pay for supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover half of what you would want/need covered. So joy, rapture, now people as young as 50 can learn that Medicare ain't nearly the wunnerful thing that people who aren't on it imagine that it is.
PS: guess who sells the supplemental insurance? Private insurance companies, that's who. Guess they ain't going anywhere any time soon.
Yes you need private supplemental insurance, but at least in my Moms case it is still by far the best arrangement out there for covering health costs. She pays $300 a month for a supplemental plan and has very low out of pocket cost for meds, and had no out of pocket for 3 days in the hospital and a week in a private rehab after a fall. No surgery or broken bones thank goodness.
The hospital billed insurance something like $40k for that, she owed nothing.
We average one specialist visit or screening a month, no out of pocket.
I would love to have that myself.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - Lemon Drop - 04-23-2021
C(-)ris wrote:
[quote=Sarcany]
Our government should implement a single-payer system because access to high quality health care should be a right. (And will be once implemented.)
It shouldn't be a guaranteed right, but everyone should be able to earn the right through employment regardless of if they are working a minimum wage job or make $100k a year.
There are ALWAYS jobs that need to be done and people that are hiring for them. ALWAYS. People might not want to do the jobs or they might not like the pay, but the jobs are there. If tying Universal Healthcare to having ANY job fills those positions and gets people off unemployment that is a win.
What about family caregivers, such as myself? The work I do is valuable and important but I am not paid. I currently pay over $600 a month for so-so insurance and I'm lucky to have that.
And 25 years ago I was doing the same, at home with very young children. Very few employers fully cover partners and children.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - sekker - 04-23-2021
Just noting that I value and consider those that post here on the MRF political side to be substantive, smart and highly educated members of the US.
And yet, look at the discussion here. I know friends who would object to the concept of 'health care is a right' - and the message from growing up without it? I thought it sucked, and so I want to fix it for everyone. Some friends view that it sucked for them, they made it, and they are now providing for their families - so those that do not have it now, that's THEIR turn to suck it up and make better for THEIR kids.
There is no question we have made a mess of health coverage, thanks to many issues over the years (some key ones are listed, but there are others).
The only way I can see real progress is to slowly expand public options. Cover kids and the retirees, then expand. Kids can now be on parental insurance until age 26. This age 50 start for Medicare proposal moves back the clock from 65 or so. Get the Freedom Dividend (UBI) rolling, people could afford some sort of basic insurance between 25 and 50.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - Sarcany - 04-23-2021
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Sarcany]Who said that a right was "everything that is beneficial to an individual..." ...?
Sarcany wrote:
Name a "right" that you have inherently and not by the grace of society and family.
So, rights are what you and your society make of them in the moment.
Maybe a "right" for this purpose is an obligation of your government to perform or to forbear from performing an act.
We're an affluent nation with the capability of providing ...
If that's a valid argument for healthcare as a "right", it's as valid for food, clothing, housing, a car and fuel to drive it, a cell phone, high speed internet, etc.
If you can make a strong argument that it's for the greater good and get a law passed then sure. Why not?
More suggestions here:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control...
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - $tevie - 04-23-2021
Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
I am on Medicare. You have to pay for everything except basic Medicare, and on top of that you have to pay for supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover half of what you would want/need covered. So joy, rapture, now people as young as 50 can learn that Medicare ain't nearly the wunnerful thing that people who aren't on it imagine that it is.
PS: guess who sells the supplemental insurance? Private insurance companies, that's who. Guess they ain't going anywhere any time soon.
Yes you need private supplemental insurance, but at least in my Moms case it is still by far the best arrangement out there for covering health costs. She pays $300 a month for a supplemental plan and has very low out of pocket cost for meds, and had no out of pocket for 3 days in the hospital and a week in a private rehab after a fall. No surgery or broken bones thank goodness.
The hospital billed insurance something like $40k for that, she owed nothing.
We average one specialist visit or screening a month, no out of pocket.
I would love to have that myself. It does little for people who don't have $300 a month for supplemental. Qualifying for dual Medicare/Medicaid requires one to be staggeringly poor, so there's that same old gap that the not-poor-enough always fall into.
But honestly, my main objection is that people think this is a first step to single-payer when in fact it's the first step to creating a situation where private insurance companies will be gouging the hell out of seniors to make up for losing their customers in the employment sector.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - Sarcany - 04-23-2021
Robert M wrote:
If an insurance provider in a different part of the country offers a package that is well-rounded and affordable, it’s not an option for me. Why? I live in NY and they are elsewhere and, for whatever reasons, can’t offer insurance to me. Doesn’t make sense in my mind.
I had insurance from a company incorporated in another state, but selling policies in my state. Then I needed to use my insurance for a hospital stay and surgery and found out after the fact that they didn't cover the surgery in my state.
All of the policy docs that I had access to said that they'd cover it. But they had secret documents filed with the state of Illinois that said they wouldn't cover my surgery.
When I complained to the attorney general's office in my state, they told me that I had no recourse because the company was regulated in Illinois.
I was on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars.
When I complained to the attorney general's office in Illinois they said that the paperwork filed in Illinois was clear and therefore exempted the company from prosecution for fraud. Somehow, I was legally obligated to know about the secret documents filed in Illinois that I had no access to until the attorney general's office sent me a copy.
Obamacare made this practice illegal. Insurance companies had to be registered with each state and subject to the laws/regulations of each state where they sold policies. Withholding plan documents in my state would have been unlawful if those rules were in place just a few years earlier.
(One of the first things 45 did was reverse this rule.)
So... I don't agree that insurance companies should sell health insurance across state lines. It's better that they don't.
Re: Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced - vision63 - 04-24-2021
Sarcany wrote:
[quote=Robert M]
If an insurance provider in a different part of the country offers a package that is well-rounded and affordable, it’s not an option for me. Why? I live in NY and they are elsewhere and, for whatever reasons, can’t offer insurance to me. Doesn’t make sense in my mind.
I had insurance from a company incorporated in another state, but selling policies in my state. Then I needed to use my insurance for a hospital stay and surgery and found out after the fact that they didn't cover the surgery in my state.
All of the policy docs that I had access to said that they'd cover it. But they had secret documents filed with the state of Illinois that said they wouldn't cover my surgery.
When I complained to the attorney general's office in my state, they told me that I had no recourse because the company was regulated in Illinois.
I was on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars.
When I complained to the attorney general's office in Illinois they said that the paperwork filed in Illinois was clear and therefore exempted the company from prosecution for fraud. Somehow, I was legally obligated to know about the secret documents filed in Illinois that I had no access to until the attorney general's office sent me a copy.
Obamacare made this practice illegal. Insurance companies had to be registered with each state and subject to the laws/regulations of each state where they sold policies. Withholding plan documents in my state would have been unlawful if those rules were in place just a few years earlier.
(One of the first things 45 did was reverse this rule.)
So... I don't agree that insurance companies should sell health insurance across state lines. It's better that they don't.
Dumb question but was it possible to get the surgery done in the state the insurance company was incorporated in? Sorry you had to shell out so much money.