Students love Medicare for all…until learning what’s in it
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
It's going to be more like Medicaid for all, but who cares if a bunch of older people who paid into the system their entire working lives get screwed? Taking care of the entire third world and facilitating their moving here is now our biggest national priority.
You know Obamacare like the NHS of the UK or the Canadian medical system will have to stare at the very obvious way to reduce costs and keep the monster of a medical bureaucracy running as long as it can. Rationing. Remember, Sarah Palin was mocked for talking about death panels? There are death panels only, they are called the Medical Advisory Board. The reality is, our generation would be the first ones rejected for medical care once, that kicks in. This is how the spiel goes, you have one old 65 year old guy vs a guy who is 25 years of age. Both need chemotherapy treatment for their cancer but, they older guy has lived his live so, why waste the treatment on the 65 year old guy? He gets denied treatment and the 25 year old guy gets his treatment. Doesn't matter if you paid into it or continue to pay into it. The government nanny caretakers will decide who gets what!
When told Medicare For All would remove more than 100 million Americans from their private plans, students were shocked.
It's not the students, who have had practically no experience with the insane U.S. health care fiasco, that are idiots, and it is not the folks writing these articles on behalf of U.S. insurance companies that are idiots; it's the people who don't understand what the word "replace" means. If you replace A with B, you don't have both A and B, and you don't pay for both A and B. You only have B instead of A. Because B is far better than A, at half the cost, you choose B, not A.
The U.S. will not anytime soon adopt a single payer healthcare system for all, which would be wonderful, of course, for all but those in the health insurance business. Instead, if the democrats sweep all three houses, including the White one, we will have a public option which will compete with private insurance and result in a gradual transition for everyone to something very much like our present medicare system, where costs are split 80/20, and the Insurance Companies sell government subsidized* plans to cover the 20% that your tax dollars don't, with a cap on total out of pocket. (My preference would be 90/10) Bills that are now a million would drop to about half or 500K, based on the next most expensive care in the world (Switzerland.)
_____________________
*Why government subsidized, for-profit insurance companies? If you can answer why we do it now, you may know why we'll keep doing it. I suppose it has something to do with the way fascist capitalism is supposed to work. . .
Last edited:
Never lose sight of your medical care night mare if you are living in the U.S. You pay double premiums (government medicare plus private insurance) until age 65. Then, after age 65, you may optionally still pay double premiums but somewhat reduced (Medicare parts B&D only, plus private supplemental insurance). Or optionally you may sign up for a heavily subsidized, private medicare advantage plan under which you agree to limit somewhat your choice of providers and either pay only medicare part B premiums and also choose some combination of zero to small additional premiums with various combinations of deductibles and drug coverage. In some of these plans you will purchase separate drug coverage from a private carrier.
Under are U.S. healthcare system, the young and healthy are provided coverage by for-profit, private insurance companies, while the old, sick and dying are dumped mostly on medicare, with private insurers raking off smaller profits from sales of supplemental insurance, or larger profits from massively subsidized medicare advantage plans.
If you are an insurer, you are effectively selling insurance to those who are at very low risk -- equivalent to selling tsuname insurance to Idahoans -- and then once your clients' risk of poor health rises you dump them onto their government backstopped entitlement accounts. From the enterprising capitalist's point of view, not even John D. Rockefeller could have come up with anything more brilliantly, or profitably, sinister than this.
Under are U.S. healthcare system, the young and healthy are provided coverage by for-profit, private insurance companies, while the old, sick and dying are dumped mostly on medicare, with private insurers raking off smaller profits from sales of supplemental insurance, or larger profits from massively subsidized medicare advantage plans.
If you are an insurer, you are effectively selling insurance to those who are at very low risk -- equivalent to selling tsuname insurance to Idahoans -- and then once your clients' risk of poor health rises you dump them onto their government backstopped entitlement accounts. From the enterprising capitalist's point of view, not even John D. Rockefeller could have come up with anything more brilliantly, or profitably, sinister than this.
I love how railroad employees are totally exempt from this corrupt system. Want to flip your lid? Look up railroad employment. No SS tax, no FICA, no nothing. Golden children. What a mistake I made when I left that industry.
Not a bad life I would think, working for the Railroads.
Instead of medicare for all including illegals, I propose that illegal immigrants be given access to the congressional health plan. Surely our elected representatives would be ok with that. Win-win.