Medicare as it is today consist of three parts.


Part A (Inpatient Hospital, SNF, Hospice)[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Part B (Other medical services, MD visits, DME, ECT) 
Part D ( Prescription Medicine)[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Part C is a combination of all three elements, usually all three)[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Medicare part A, you have a $1,364 (2019) Deductible for each new occurrence where you are admitted into hospital. The taxpayer pays the difference.
Medicare part B, you have a 20% coinsurance to pay every time you go to the MD, get crutches, have outpatient surgery. The taxpayer pays the 80%
Medicare part D, prescription drug coverage. YOU MUST PURCHASE A DRUG PLAN or you will be penalized.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Now, that is a lot of out pocket cost if you do not have insurance in the form of supplement or an Advantage plan or some retirement plan. Even, with most insurance plans you will have some out of pocket cost in the form of co pays or premiums; or both. Only special needs, dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare recipients get zero OOP cost.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]What Bernie is selling is NOT MEDICARE[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Ol Bernie says, he is going to get rid of insurance companies and that the cost for your services will be ZERO.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I saw a poll that said that 31% of Republicans were in favor of "Medicare For All"[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Are you freaking kidding me? We will lose Doctors, and we will have crazy long wait times. Our level of care will deteriorate and we will go broke as a country. Even more so than we already are, much more.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Please anyone, please tell me how this could possibly work?[/font]

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

It can't work. It's not supposed to work. Social security is a perfect example. By all actuarial measures it's a complete and utter failure on every level. But try to get elected on a platform of reform, let alone repeal.

Most politicians never serve long enough to see the results of the policies they impose. This creates a perverse incentive to use wild unsustainable promises to get elected and bare no real accountability when policies fail. Compounding the problem we have an academic culture that promotes the idea that all problems can be solved by government and problems created by government can be solved by even bigger government.

---

Let's see, we have Medicare for all, reparations for slavery, forgive all the student loans, $15 minimum wage, and God knows what the policy is on enforcing the border.

Have I left anything out?

I wouldn't be surprised if next week one of them proposes paying off everyone's mortgage and credit cards.

---

Let's see, we have Medicare for all, reparations for slavery, forgive all the student loans, $15 minimum wage, and God knows what the policy is on enforcing the border.  

Have I left anything out?  

I wouldn't be surprised if next week one of them proposes paying off everyone's mortgage and credit cards.

You forgot cow farts.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Medicare as it is today consist of three parts.


Part A (Inpatient Hospital, SNF, Hospice)[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Part B (Other medical services, MD visits, DME, ECT) 
Part D ( Prescription Medicine)[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Part C is a combination of all three elements, usually all three)[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Medicare part A, you have a $1,364 (2019) Deductible for each new occurrence where you are admitted into hospital. The taxpayer pays the difference.
Medicare part B, you have a 20% coinsurance to pay every time you go to the MD, get crutches, have outpatient surgery. The taxpayer pays the 80%
Medicare part D, prescription drug coverage. YOU MUST PURCHASE A DRUG PLAN or you will be penalized.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Now, that is a lot of out pocket cost if you do not have insurance in the form of supplement or an Advantage plan or some retirement plan. Even, with most insurance plans you will have some out of pocket cost in the form of co pays or premiums; or both. Only special needs, dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare recipients get zero OOP cost.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]What Bernie is selling is NOT MEDICARE[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Ol Bernie says, he is going to get rid of insurance companies and that the cost for your services will be ZERO.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I saw a poll that said that 31% of Republicans were in favor of "Medicare For All"[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Are you freaking kidding me? We will lose Doctors, and we will have crazy long wait times. Our level of care will deteriorate and we will go broke as a country. Even more so than we already are, much more.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Please anyone, please tell me how this could possibly work?[/font]

You're right that Bernie seems to be selling a system where everything is paid for by the government.
and you're right that Medicare doesn't work that way now. It leaves the patient still having to pay some things.
Would you object to simply expanding Medicare, the way it works now, to cover more adults?

Heres a good article explaining the different things that Democrats are proposing https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/...rs-jayapal

And here is a good article showing how other countries have addressed these types of problems:
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/1...is-sanders

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don’t trust the government to run everyone’s health care. You need only look at the V.A to see what is in store for all of us. Now I know the V.A works well in some areas for some people, but overall it is inefficient and ineffective.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

I reject any expansion of government. The fact of the matter is there is no efficient or economic way for the government to provide health care to their citizens, nor should they have to. Even if they implement an expensive "for-all" system, it will eventually erode to have to include private subsidy insurance. At that point, you've figured out that you need to crawl back to the private sector but you've already done irreversible damage. Now you will need the government to influx another stream of cash to bring the private sector back up from the dumps. One needs to look no further than every example on this planet as well as our own recent ObamaCare failure to see the writing. Remove unnecessary barriers to entry and let healthcare naturally adjust to fair market levels. This is not something and will never be something that the government can influence to benefit all.

---

Medicare as it is today consist of three parts.


Part A (Inpatient Hospital, SNF, Hospice)[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Part B (Other medical services, MD visits, DME, ECT) 
Part D ( Prescription Medicine)[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Part C is a combination of all three elements, usually all three)[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Medicare part A, you have a $1,364 (2019) Deductible for each new occurrence where you are admitted into hospital. The taxpayer pays the difference.
Medicare part B, you have a 20% coinsurance to pay every time you go to the MD, get crutches, have outpatient surgery. The taxpayer pays the 80%
Medicare part D, prescription drug coverage. YOU MUST PURCHASE A DRUG PLAN or you will be penalized.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Now, that is a lot of out pocket cost if you do not have insurance in the form of supplement or an Advantage plan or some retirement plan. Even, with most insurance plans you will have some out of pocket cost in the form of co pays or premiums; or both. Only special needs, dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare recipients get zero OOP cost.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]What Bernie is selling is NOT MEDICARE[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Ol Bernie says, he is going to get rid of insurance companies and that the cost for your services will be ZERO.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I saw a poll that said that 31% of Republicans were in favor of "Medicare For All"[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Are you freaking kidding me? We will lose Doctors, and we will have crazy long wait times. Our level of care will deteriorate and we will go broke as a country. Even more so than we already are, much more.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Please anyone, please tell me how this could possibly work?[/font]

You're right that Bernie seems to be selling a system where everything is paid for by the government.
and you're right that Medicare doesn't work that way now. It leaves the patient still having to pay some things.
Would you object to simply expanding Medicare, the way it works now, to cover more adults?

Heres a good article explaining the different things that Democrats are proposing https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/...rs-jayapal

And here is a good article showing how other countries have addressed these types of problems:
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/1...is-sanders

Would buying seats on the Titanic lower the stress on the trans atlantic transportation system?

---

Medicare as it is today consist of three parts.


Part A (Inpatient Hospital, SNF, Hospice)[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Part B (Other medical services, MD visits, DME, ECT) 
Part D ( Prescription Medicine)[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Part C is a combination of all three elements, usually all three)[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Medicare part A, you have a $1,364 (2019) Deductible for each new occurrence where you are admitted into hospital. The taxpayer pays the difference.
Medicare part B, you have a 20% coinsurance to pay every time you go to the MD, get crutches, have outpatient surgery. The taxpayer pays the 80%
Medicare part D, prescription drug coverage. YOU MUST PURCHASE A DRUG PLAN or you will be penalized.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Now, that is a lot of out pocket cost if you do not have insurance in the form of supplement or an Advantage plan or some retirement plan. Even, with most insurance plans you will have some out of pocket cost in the form of co pays or premiums; or both. Only special needs, dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare recipients get zero OOP cost.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]What Bernie is selling is NOT MEDICARE[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Ol Bernie says, he is going to get rid of insurance companies and that the cost for your services will be ZERO.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I saw a poll that said that 31% of Republicans were in favor of "Medicare For All"[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Are you freaking kidding me? We will lose Doctors, and we will have crazy long wait times. Our level of care will deteriorate and we will go broke as a country. Even more so than we already are, much more.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Please anyone, please tell me how this could possibly work?[/font]

You're right that Bernie seems to be selling a system where everything is paid for by the government.
and you're right that Medicare doesn't work that way now. It leaves the patient still having to pay some things.
Would you object to simply expanding Medicare, the way it works now, to cover more adults?

Heres a good article explaining the different things that Democrats are proposing https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/...rs-jayapal

And here is a good article showing how other countries have addressed these types of problems:
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/1...is-sanders

Every plan claims to regulate prices, therefore every plan will collapse.

Expanding Medicare merely creates adverse selection in the private market.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Provide vouchers based upon need and impose strict antitrust rules against medical insurance and pharmaceutical companies to avoid seeing them jack up the price after the vouchers hit the field. That's that. We have medical insurance available to everyone that wants it (let's formally remove the mandate from law, please), insurance and pharma are making money hand over fist without boning the private citizen and everybody wins.

---

I reject any expansion of government. The fact of the matter is there is no efficient or economic way for the government to provide health care to their citizens, nor should they have to. Even if they implement an expensive "for-all" system, it will eventually erode to have to include private subsidy insurance. At that point, you've figured out that you need to crawl back to the private sector but you've already done irreversible damage. Now you will need the government to influx another stream of cash to bring the private sector back up from the dumps. One needs to look no further than every example on this planet as well as our own recent ObamaCare failure to see the writing. Remove unnecessary barriers to entry and let healthcare naturally adjust to fair market levels. This is not something and will never be something that the government can influence to benefit all.

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care. People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

I  don’t trust the government to run everyone’s health care. You need only look at the V.A to see what is in store for all of us. Now I know the V.A works well in some areas for some people, but overall it is inefficient and ineffective.

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

You're right that Bernie seems to be selling a system where everything is paid for by the government.
and you're right that Medicare doesn't work that way now. It leaves the patient still having to pay some things.
Would you object to simply expanding Medicare, the way it works now, to cover more adults?

Heres a good article explaining the different things that Democrats are proposing https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/...rs-jayapal

And here is a good article showing how other countries have addressed these types of problems:
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/1...is-sanders

Every plan claims to regulate prices, therefore every plan will collapse.

Expanding Medicare merely creates adverse selection in the private market.

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I reject any expansion of government. The fact of the matter is there is no efficient or economic way for the government to provide health care to their citizens, nor should they have to. Even if they implement an expensive "for-all" system, it will eventually erode to have to include private subsidy insurance. At that point, you've figured out that you need to crawl back to the private sector but you've already done irreversible damage. Now you will need the government to influx another stream of cash to bring the private sector back up from the dumps. One needs to look no further than every example on this planet as well as our own recent ObamaCare failure to see the writing. Remove unnecessary barriers to entry and let healthcare naturally adjust to fair market levels. This is not something and will never be something that the government can influence to benefit all.

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care.  People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

I  don’t trust the government to run everyone’s health care. You need only look at the V.A to see what is in store for all of us. Now I know the V.A works well in some areas for some people, but overall it is inefficient and ineffective.

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

Every plan claims to regulate prices, therefore every plan will collapse.

Expanding Medicare merely creates adverse selection in the private market.

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

If you don't understand why the public plan would inevitably have the costliest patients dumped onto it then the economics of the industry are beyond your grasp.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I reject any expansion of government. The fact of the matter is there is no efficient or economic way for the government to provide health care to their citizens, nor should they have to. Even if they implement an expensive "for-all" system, it will eventually erode to have to include private subsidy insurance. At that point, you've figured out that you need to crawl back to the private sector but you've already done irreversible damage. Now you will need the government to influx another stream of cash to bring the private sector back up from the dumps. One needs to look no further than every example on this planet as well as our own recent ObamaCare failure to see the writing. Remove unnecessary barriers to entry and let healthcare naturally adjust to fair market levels. This is not something and will never be something that the government can influence to benefit all.

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care.  People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

I  don’t trust the government to run everyone’s health care. You need only look at the V.A to see what is in store for all of us. Now I know the V.A works well in some areas for some people, but overall it is inefficient and ineffective.

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

Every plan claims to regulate prices, therefore every plan will collapse.

Expanding Medicare merely creates adverse selection in the private market.

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I read it. Which article debunks anything I said? Canadians have become more and more reliant on private insurance and private providers since its inception. What used to be nearly 100% fell to 80% and now is lower than 70% coverage by public healthcare. Oddly enough, providers are mainly self-employed private entities. If we look at England, there has always been some form of private care available alongside public but reserved for a rare few. Just like Canada, there is a trend towards private happening now. I'm not going to go through them all as you may get the point. Medicare for all is a pipe dream. Obamacare was a pipe dream. We have access to the best medical care in the world. It is the multi-layered red tape and lack of concurrent modality that hampers. The system needs to be on the same page across the system. Remove barriers and control pharmaceutical companies through anti-trust regulations. You know, the pesky bit called competition law. Fine adjustment is all that is necessary. Health care is an individual responsibility from preventative care to treatment. Don't tell me I owe higher taxes to pay into a system for Johnny fat [BLEEP] that eats nothing but fast food daily and now has a heart condition and other ailments that he can't pay for.

Why are you price shopping on your death bed?

Eliminate your arbitrary "completely" and "everything" (along with "always", those are terms of absolutes people use to escape rational discussion) you will have to look no further than Obamacare to see the narrative. If public healthcare is so desired, why must countries that implement socialized medicine rely on private care at all?

---

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care.  People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I read it. Which article debunks anything I said? Canadians have become more and more reliant on private insurance and private providers since its inception. What used to be nearly 100% fell to 80% and now is lower than 70% coverage by public healthcare. Oddly enough, providers are mainly self-employed private entities. If we look at England, there has always been some form of private care available alongside public but reserved for a rare few. Just like Canada, there is a trend towards private happening now. I'm not going to go through them all as you may get the point. Medicare for all is a pipe dream. Obamacare was a pipe dream. We have access to the best medical care in the world. It is the multi-layered red tape and lack of concurrent modality that hampers. The system needs to be on the same page across the system. Remove barriers and control pharmaceutical companies through anti-trust regulations. You know, the pesky bit called competition law. Fine adjustment is all that is necessary. Health care is an individual responsibility from preventative care to treatment. Don't tell me I owe higher taxes to pay into a system for Johnny fat [BLEEP] that eats nothing but fast food daily and now has a heart condition and other ailments that he can't pay for.

Why are you price shopping on your death bed?

Eliminate your arbitrary "completely" and "everything" (along with "always", those are terms of absolutes people use to escape rational discussion) you will have to look no further than Obamacare to see the narrative. If public healthcare is so desired, why must countries that implement socialized medicine rely on private care at all?

The narrative that a country with a democratically elected government can shift all of healthcare to the public sector overnight is false.  Instead, it happens incrementally over the course of decades, and never completely, and sometimes reverse course, as you note.

My comment about fearing death should not make you think of a literal death bed. Instead think of somebody who just entered the ER with chest pains. they're not going to haggle about going down the street, or getting a slightly different test, for a little less money.

Your second to last sentence accuses me of inappropriate use of absolute statements.  Then your last sentence is a question assuming an absolute.

Your question, rephrased, "if things don't work well when we use X to the full extent, why use X at all?"
For example,
"My car doesn't run on 100% fuel.  Why should I trust you that it needs a mixture of air and fuel? Nonsense.  It should just run on air. Sure, it runs on a combination of fuel and air now, but it could run on just air if all those features that the oil lobby got mandated in went away."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I read it. Which article debunks anything I said? Canadians have become more and more reliant on private insurance and private providers since its inception. What used to be nearly 100% fell to 80% and now is lower than 70% coverage by public healthcare. Oddly enough, providers are mainly self-employed private entities. If we look at England, there has always been some form of private care available alongside public but reserved for a rare few. Just like Canada, there is a trend towards private happening now. I'm not going to go through them all as you may get the point. Medicare for all is a pipe dream. Obamacare was a pipe dream. We have access to the best medical care in the world. It is the multi-layered red tape and lack of concurrent modality that hampers. The system needs to be on the same page across the system. Remove barriers and control pharmaceutical companies through anti-trust regulations. You know, the pesky bit called competition law. Fine adjustment is all that is necessary. Health care is an individual responsibility from preventative care to treatment. Don't tell me I owe higher taxes to pay into a system for Johnny fat [BLEEP] that eats nothing but fast food daily and now has a heart condition and other ailments that he can't pay for.

Why are you price shopping on your death bed?

Eliminate your arbitrary "completely" and "everything" (along with "always", those are terms of absolutes people use to escape rational discussion) you will have to look no further than Obamacare to see the narrative. If public healthcare is so desired, why must countries that implement socialized medicine rely on private care at all?

The narrative that a country with a democratically elected government can shift all of healthcare to the public sector overnight is false.  Instead, it happens incrementally over the course of decades, and never completely, and sometimes reverse course, as you note.

My comment about fearing death should not make you think of a literal death bed. Instead think of somebody who just entered the ER with chest pains. they're not going to haggle about going down the street, or getting a slightly different test, for a little less money.

Your second to last sentence accuses me of inappropriate use of absolute statements.  Then your last sentence is a question assuming an absolute.

Your question, rephrased, "if things don't work well when we use X to the full extent, why use X at all?"
For example,
"My car doesn't run on 100% fuel.  Why should I trust you that it needs a mixture of air and fuel? Nonsense.  It should just run on air. Sure, it runs on a combination of fuel and air now, but it could run on just air if all those features that the oil lobby got mandated in went away."

---

The narrative that a country with a democratically elected government can shift all of healthcare to the public sector overnight is false.  Instead, it happens incrementally over the course of decades, and never completely, and sometimes reverse course, as you note.

My comment about fearing death should not make you think of a literal death bed. Instead think of somebody who just entered the ER with chest pains. they're not going to haggle about going down the street, or getting a slightly different test, for a little less money.

Your second to last sentence accuses me of inappropriate use of absolute statements.  Then your last sentence is a question assuming an absolute.

Your question, rephrased, "if things don't work well when we use X to the full extent, why use X at all?"
For example,
"My car doesn't run on 100% fuel.  Why should I trust you that it needs a mixture of air and fuel? Nonsense.  It should just run on air. Sure, it runs on a combination of fuel and air now, but it could run on just air if all those features that the oil lobby got mandated in went away."

---

Let's see, we have Medicare for all, reparations for slavery, forgive all the student loans, $15 minimum wage, and God knows what the policy is on enforcing the border.  

Have I left anything out?  

I wouldn't be surprised if next week one of them proposes paying off everyone's mortgage and credit cards.

Tunics, government apartments, vouchers on payday, riding a bicycle to your job at the factory, waiting lines at the food store...…...

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Let's see, we have Medicare for all, reparations for slavery, forgive all the student loans, $15 minimum wage, and God knows what the policy is on enforcing the border.  

Have I left anything out?  

I wouldn't be surprised if next week one of them proposes paying off everyone's mortgage and credit cards.

Tunics, government apartments, vouchers on payday, riding a bicycle to your job at the factory, waiting lines at the food store...…...

Because Socialism = Communism.

Or not.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Also, the disruptions this will cause to Seniors will be catastrophic. Seniors will lose the extra benefits they rely on to survive. They will have to now compete for dollars earmarked specifically for them. Democrats could care less about the collateral and arbitrary damage they will cause in their rush to gain power.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"