Nurses Know the Reality Of Healthcare. That’s Why They Want ‘Medicare for All.’

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Nurses-United.jpg

Nurses Know the Reality Of Healthcare
That’s Why They Want ‘Medicare for All ’


Nurses.jpg


by Jeneen Interlandi | May 27, 2019 | https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/opinion/nurses-medicare-for-all-health-insurance.html


The experiences that have turned the members of National Nurses United, the nation’s largest union for nurses, into vocal advocates for a universal, government-run health care system are numerous and horrific.

Renelsa Caudill, a Washington, D.C.-area cardiac nurse, remembers being forced to pull a cardiac patient out of the CT scanner before the procedure was complete. The woman had suffered a heart attack earlier that year and was having chest pains. The doctor wanted the scan to help him decide if she needed a potentially risky catheterization, but the woman’s insurance, inexplicably, had refused to cover the test.

Melissa Johnson-Camacho, an oncology nurse in Northern California, remembers a mother who had to ration the special bags that were helping to keep her daughter’s lungs clear. The bags were supposed to be changed every day, so that the daughter did not drown in her own fluids, but they cost $550 each.

And Karla Diederich, also from California, remembers saying a final goodbye to her friend and fellow intensive care nurse Nelly Yap in their hospital’s parking lot. Ms. Yap was dying of metastatic cancer. She was scheduled for another round of chemotherapy, but the hospital had changed owners while she was on sick leave and she’d lost her job — and insurance — as a result. “Nelly spent most of her life taking care of other people,” Ms. Diederich says. “And when she needed that care herself, it was not there.”

The women say that their professional experiences have led them to an inescapable conclusion: The motives of gargantuan for-profit health care industries — hospitals, pharmaceuticals, insurance — are incompatible with those of health care itself. They argue that a single-payer system, run by the federal government and available to all United States residents regardless of income or employment status, is the only way to fully eliminate the obstacles that routinely prevent doctors and nurses from doing their jobs.

Several proposals now working their way through Congress would aim to create just such a system. The nurses’ support for such proposals — the union has endorsed a bill put forth by Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington — is somewhat surprising, because the zero-sum nature of American health policy tends to place them on the losing end of any major system overhaul. The money it will take to provide many more services to many more patients will have to come from somewhere, the thinking goes. And the paychecks of doctors and nurses are a likely source.

That calculus has not deterred the nurses.

Perhaps that’s because they see so much time and money wasted by the bureaucracy of the current system. By most estimates, the administrative costs of American health care surpass those of any other developed nation. Or maybe it’s because of the innumerable avoidable medical crises they constantly find themselves confronting. Patients go into heart failure because they can’t afford blood pressure medication, or gamble with their diabetes for want of insulin, then turn up in the hospital needing care that’s far more expensive than any preventive measure would have been.

Or maybe they just know that a steady job with decent health benefits does not exempt anyone from the arbitrary agonies of our current system. Ms. Johnson-Camacho recalls having to discharge a patient without essential chemotherapy — not because the patient was uninsured but because his insurer refused to cover the drug that had been prescribed. “I had just finished explaining to him how important it was to take this medication faithfully,” she says. “I told him, ‘Every day you skip it is a day that the cancer has to potentially spread.’ And then we had to send him home without it.”

Ms. Johnson-Camacho says another patient — a young man with a treatable form of cancer — was so overwhelmed by the cost of his care, and so terrified of burdening his family with that cost, that he told her he was planning to kill himself.

Anyone who has been to a hospital or seen a family member grapple with illness has at least one story like this. Nurses, who encounter the system daily for years or decades, have hundreds, and they know better than most how brutally such stories can end. “It’s barbaric,” Ms. Diederich says. “Crucial medical decisions are being made by businessmen whose primary goal is to make a profit. Not by medical professionals who are trying to treat their patients.”

The next remaking of American health care is still a long way off. Recent congressional hearings and a report from the Congressional Budget Office have helped to clarify the long roster of questions that lawmakers will have to address if they are serious about any of the many bills now circulating. But concrete answers to those questions have yet to materialize, and in the meantime, American patients are ambivalent. Polling suggests that a majority now support the idea of universal health care, but many are still wary of the trade-offs such an overhaul would require.

Proponents who want to persuade those skeptics would do well to have nurses make the case. “People say they are scared to have the government take control of their health care,” Ms. Diederich says. “But they should be scared of the people who are in control now.”




Comments
I’m a nurse. I worked on the insurance side and the hospital side as an RN Case Manager. I wept for joy in March, 2010 when President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. You know why? Because I walked in the trenches of a very large hospital during the recession and heard story after story from patients who had lost their jobs, no fault of their own, and therefore lost their healthcare insurance. Decisions needed to be made regarding their care and treatment. That doesn’t sound like much to many people, especially our Republican legislators, but the difference between life or death, or going broke or not going broke, descended on thousands and thousands of people. The Affordable Care Act gave people a chance. People, just like most of us, who just needed healthcare, plain and simple. We may be faced with the dilemma of Medicare for All. On the one hand, would Republicans ever pass such a bill? They don’t seem to care how people receive healthcare in their very own country, or if people even are able to receive it. Insurance companies love non approvals, their goal many times, because then they can make more money. I know that side too, and am proud to say I approved every single cochlear implant that came across my desk, because I personally approached the medical director to approve them and backed up my pleas. One example of the extra mile. However, as long as we have legislators who run their votes for insurance companies, I fear further implementation.


Comments
It is my sincerest desire that participants in the debate regarding health care stop and never again use the word " provider," to describe the insurance industry. The hospital worker who changes your bed pan, the nurse who cares for your needs, the technician who rolls your bed to the X-ray lab, the orderly who changes your sheets, the doctor who saved your life- these are all examples of real " Providers" ( with a capital P) Insurance companies are hyper- capitalist companies, middle men who make profit from our universal need for health care. They place profit above all else. They assure that a bloated bereaucracy of claims reviewers, rule enforcers, accountants and medical experts you will never meet, and tell you and doctors what can or cannot be done remain firmly entrenched between you and the real providers. Insurance companies are not providers in any conceivable sense of the word. they are gate keepers. They are toll booths. They are businesses which make enormous amounts of profit, and hold your life in their hands. For them to assume the mantle of being a " provider" is absurd, if not obscene, abuse of the language. Please stop the fear mongering and fake distress at the possibility of the insurance industry being removed from the marketplace of valuing our lives and medical care. Healthcare is a right in virtually all Western industrialized societies, except for the US. Insurance Companies are NOT " providers'


Comments
I'm a RN since 1980. Shocked every single day by what I see happening in healthcare. Insurance companies are running everything and putting lives in peril to save money for themselves. This has been going on for decades and only getting worse and worse. It should be criminal to let people die or suffer needlessly. It should be criminal to force people into bankruptcy because their child is ill. But they do it every day and no one seems to care. Congress is a joke. The Insurance lobby owns them. Plus, they have excellent health insurance, so it really doesn’t matter to them quite honestly.




obamacare.jpg




Originally posted in June 2011 https://www.bgol.us/forum/threads/ryan-vs-obamas-economic-plans.595460


....This health care issue, Medicare/ Medicaid , is not very complex, but the corporate television media (ABC- CBS- NBC/MSNBC -FAKE- CNN -) all refuse to break-it-down in simple form for the majority of their viewers who only watch television as their only source of “news?” and information.

Why? It’s simple, $$$$$$$$$ money. Health care companies and pharmaceutical companies reliably spend billions of dollars on television commercials on these networks. That’s why you get bombarded with Viagra, Cialis & Levitra limp-dick fix drug commercials. You get these ‘image building’ commercials from Aetna, United HealthCare, Cigna and all the other “Health Care Mafia” companies.

Now in case you haven’t figured it out— what is the business model of the “Health Care Mafia”? It’s very simple; you don’t need a MBA to figure it out. The “Health Care Mafia” is in the business of denying as much health care as possible, they are the ultimate ‘cockblockers’ — they exist to deny as vigorously as possible your ability to receive medical care that will keep you alive.

How does it work? You pay monthly premiums to the “Health Care Mafia” usually with a percentage paid by your employer if you have a job where such ‘insurance’ is offered. Let’s make it simple; let’s assume medium size corporation XYZ has 1,000 employees who enroll in the “Health Care Mafia” insurance plan. The typical plan premium is $1,000 a month, multiply that by 1,000 employees and that’s $1,000,000 ( One Million Dollars) a month going to the “Health Care Mafia” . The “Health Care Mafia” gets that $1,000,000 and immediately puts 25% to 47% of that money into their vault. It’s like a mobster “paying tribute” to his Godfather. This “tribute” money pays for the “Health Care Mafia” companies private jets, stretch limos, 4**** Star private dining rooms, and the multimillion dollar executive compensation. One health care mafia kingpin made so much money collecting “tribute” that he had to give back $620,000,000. (620 Million Dollars) The executives and senior officials at these “Health Care Mafia” companies are stacking serious paper — and they are not the doctors; they are just the middleman between you and your doctor. You can read all about how it works from an insider.


Oh what about health care you ask. Let’s say, god forbid, your doctor tells you that you have fulminant myocarditis a severe condition but one that can be treated successfully over time 93% of the time. The doctor ask you if you have ‘insurance’. You say yes and hand him your insurance card. He calls the “Health Care Mafia”representative and tells them about your condition. That representative is financially incentivized (earns bonus money) to basically tell your doctor to send you home with a bottle of Tylenol . Your doctor, if he’s ethical & empathetic will ‘push-back’ and fight to get a treatment regimen approved for you. The “Health Care Mafia” representative will also fight to give you as little coverage and the cheapest procedures available. It’s very simple, the majority of the major “Health Care Mafia” companies are for-profit entities whose stocks trade publically on the New York Stock Exchange. The less coverage they provide you, the more money the make, the higher the stock price goes up, the more value the executives stock options are worth. It’s not about your health and medical care, it’s about the money. They are the shot-caller between you and your doctor, and your life.

Remember the 25% to 47% of your premium money that “Health Care Mafia” puts in their vault right off the top as soon as they get it? President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act which the corporate media calls ObamaCare limits the skim to 15%. The RepubliKlans are trying to repeal this part of the bill along with many other provisions since they can’t repeal the whole thing. The United States despite the fact that 59 million people have no health care coverage— (that’s right no Medicare/ Medicaid- just go to the emergency room) — spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other major country on the planet earth. (look below)

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg

The United States which is the world's wealthiest, spends by far the most on health care. The United States spends around $8,700 per capita each year on health care, more than double the OECD average and well more than second place Switzerland.
Despite the high spending, Americans are not anywhere near the world's healthiest. More than 35% of Americans are obese, one of the highest rate in the world, and exceptionally high compared with other countries spending the most on health. The United States is also the only top 10 country for health spending where the life expectancy does not exceed 80 years. Also, infant mortality has increased in the United States. While in 2000, the incidence of infant mortality in the United States was lower than the OECD average, today it is higher.





Meanwhile the “Health Care Mafia” during the cheney-bush regime, expending rapacious greed, raised their health care premiums 200% to 500% more than the rate of inflation.


The “Health Care Mafia” spent $1,500,000 per day 24/7 to Lobby Bribe the 535 members of the congress and the senate to make sure president Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act DID NOT contain a ‘public option’ or a Medicare option @ age 55, or anything that would break the “Health Care Mafia” oligopoly. Paul Ryan received more than $700,000 in bribes from the “Health Care Mafia” oligopoly. Ryan wants to end Medicare which has a 3% overhead, and collects premiums from everyone who gets a paycheck, during all those years before you reach age 65 and instead turn everything over to the rapacious “Health Care Mafia” and while were at this cut the top tax bracket down to 25% punching an additional $14,000,000,000,000 (14 Trillion Dollars) hole in the US budget deficit. Let me stop here. This is a porn board.
 
Last edited:

MCP

International
International Member
We in the UK are so grateful for the NHS. Yes, the US can afford medicare for all.
 

MCP

International
International Member
American caravan arrives in Canadian 'birthplace of insulin' for cheaper medicine

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-medicine-idUSKCN1TU0T4?utm_source=reddit.com

r


TORONTO (Reuters) - A self-declared “caravan” of Americans bused across the Canada-U.S. border on Saturday, seeking affordable prices for insulin and raising awareness of “the insulin price crisis” in the United States.
The group called Caravan to Canada started the journey from Minneapolis, Minnesota on Friday, and stopped at London, Ontario on Saturday, to purchase life-saving type 1 diabetes medication at a pharmacy.
The caravan numbers at approximately 20 people, according to Nicole Smith-Holt, a member of the group. Smith-Holt said her 26-year-old son died in June 2017 because he was forced to ration insulin due to the high cost. This is Smith-Holt’s second time on the caravan.

Caravan to Canada trekked the border in May for the same reasons, which Holt-Smith said was smaller than the group this week. She said Americans have gone to countries like Mexico and Canada for more affordable medications in the past and continue to do so.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported in May that Canadian pharmacists have seen a “quiet resurgence” in Americans coming to Canada looking for cheaper pharmaceuticals.
Insulin prices in the United States nearly doubled to an average annual cost of $5,705 in 2016 from $2,864 in 2012, according to a study in January.

While not everyone purchased the same amount of insulin, Smith-Holt said most people are saving around $3,000 for three months of insulin, and as a whole the group is saving around $15,000 to $20,000.
Prescriptions for insulin are not required in Canadian pharmacies Smith-Holt said, but the caravan has them so they can prove to the border patrol they are not intending to resell them when returning to the United States.
Quinn Nystrom, a leader of T1International’s Minnesota chapter, said on May via Twitter that the price of insulin in the United States per vial was $320, while in Canada the same medication under a different name was $30.

T1International, a non-profit that advocates for increased access to type 1 diabetes medication, has described the situation in U.S. as an insulin crisis.
“We know that many people couldn’t make this trip because they cannot afford the costs associated with traveling to another country to buy insulin there,” said Elizabeth Pfiester, the executive director of T1International in a press release.

An itinerary states the caravan will stop at the Banting House in London, Ontario later in the day. The Banting House is where Canadian physician and scientist Frederick Banting, who discovered insulin, lived from 1920 to 1921, and is called the “birthplace of insulin”, according to the Banting House website.
Smith-Holt said the group is not currently planning any future trips, but they could be organized in the near future depending on need. She hopes for long-term solutions in the United States like price caps, anti-gouging laws, patent reform and transparency from pharmaceutical companies.
Allison Nimlos, a Type 1 diabetes advocate from the United States, shows the less expensive Canadian insulin she purchased (right) after leaving a Canadian pharmacy in London, Ontario, Canada June 29, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
We in the UK are so grateful for the NHS. Yes, the US can afford medicare for all.

I'm curious.

If, as I have heard, there were a lot of pros and cons in the debate prior to the British's adoption of a national health system or, as I believe it was often referred to in this country as, "socialized medicine." (Of course, the term "socialized" anything in this country has, historically, been imputed with bad connotations, i.e., especially before and during the cold war period).

Nevertheless, as you understand, learned, or hear it -- what are the negatives with such a system? And, if you have a moment, how have they been overcome (whether by legislative fixes or turning the lies on their heads)???

Thanking you in advance . . .

.
 

MCP

International
International Member
I'm curious.

If, as I have heard, there were a lot of pros and cons in the debate prior to the British's adoption of a national health system or, as I believe it was often referred to in this country as, "socialized medicine." (Of course, the term "socialized" anything in this country has, historically, been imputed with bad connotations, i.e., especially before and during the cold war period).

Nevertheless, as you understand, learned, or hear it -- what are the negatives with such a system? And, if you have a moment, how have they been overcome (whether by legislative fixes or turning the lies on their heads)???

Thanking you in advance . . .

.

Hi there,

With greater demands on the NHS right now, due to a ageing population, the costs from the public purse is ever increasing. Here are some links which could shed some light on both the benefits and future problems the NHS could endure.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44560590

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38907054
 

MCP

International
International Member


British reaction to costs of healthcare services in the UK
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
FACTCHECK

The Facts on Medicare for All
By Lori Robertson
Posted on April 24, 2019


Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the latest version of his Medicare for All legislation on April 10, with 13 Democratic co-sponsors. Four of them, plus Sanders himself, are running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sander says the bill, S. 1129, “would provide comprehensive and cost-effective health care for everyone,” while the White House has saidthe plan would “mandate a decrease or elimination of choice and competition.” Once again, health care is shaping up to be a focal point of the presidential campaign. Let’s look at the details of this proposal.


What is the overall plan?
As the name indicates, the plan would expand Medicare, which now covers primarily those age 65 and older and some with disabilities, to everyone, creating a new universal, single-payer health care system in the United States. The country would move from a fragmented system — in which nearly half the population has employer-sponsored, private insurance with the rest a mix of Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare, private individual market coverage and no insurance at all — to a system in which everyone’s insurer is Medicare. Or nearly everyone. Under the plan, the Veterans Health Administration and Indian Health Service would remain.


What health care services would be covered?
The new “universal Medicare program,” as the bill calls it would cover: hospital inpatient and outpatient services, ambulatory services, primary and preventive care, prescription drugs and medical devices, mental health and substance abuse treatment, lab and diagnostic services, reproductive and maternity, newborn care and pediatrics, dental/hearing/vision services, short-term rehab, emergency care, transportation for low-income and disabled individuals to receive these services, and home and community-based long-term care. The bill would eliminate the Hyde amendment, which now restricts federal funding of abortion to only cases of rape, incest or endangerment to the mother’s life. The secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services could change or expand the benefits.

Current Medicare benefits would be expanded, since they don’t include dental, hearing or vision coverage now. Also, Sanders’ bill calls for virtually no out-of-pocket costs at the point of service for these benefits. There would be no copays, deductibles or premiums, with the exception of prescription drugs and biologics(such as vaccines and gene therapy), which could carry copays totaling no more than $200 a year per person, indexed for inflation.

Would private insurance still be available?
Potentially, but it would be limited. Once the bill is fully implemented, it would be “unlawful” for “a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits” provided under Medicare for All, and employers couldn’t provide such benefits either. However, private insurance could be sold to cover additional benefits that the new universal system didn’t cover — perhaps cosmetic surgery or other non-medically necessary care.

Private insurance would be available during a transition period (see the next question). The bill calls for funds to be set aside for workers in the insurance industry who lose their jobs because of the legislation.

There’s also the potential for direct-pay private contracts. One provision in the legislation allows for private contracts between health care providers and individuals for services for which the provider will not seek reimbursement from the government. The provider, however, must file an affidavit with the HHS secretary saying he or she won’t seek payment from the government for any service to anyone for one year. So, doctors would have to operate outside the universal Medicare system, with patients who could afford to pay out of pocket.
Sanders has made clear that private insurance would be eliminated. “You are not going to be able, in the long run, to have cost-effective, universal health care unless you change the system, unless you get rid of the insurance companies,” he said in an interview on MSNBC. Other Democratic presidential candidates haven’t fully embraced that part of the plan. When asked in a CNN town hall whether private insurance companies would go away, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said, “You’ll have to see whether they want to compete or not. I don’t think they will.”

After Sen. Kamala Harris said the plan would eliminate private insurance, also on CNN, her press secretary noted that she backed other legislation that wouldn’t go that far, as well. “She has co-sponsored other pieces of legislation that she sees as a path to getting us there, but this is the plan she is running on,” Harris’ national press secretary Ian Sams told CNN.

Gillibrand and Harris are co-sponsors of the legislation, as are Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, who also are running for the Democratic presidential nomination. Candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar hasn’t signed on to the legislation and instead has co-sponsored a billthat would provide a Medicaid buy-in option and another that would allow those age 50-64 to enroll in Medicare.


How would the transition to Medicare for All occur?
Four years after enactment of the legislation, everyone would get a Universal Medicare card, and the new system would be in effect. Leading up to that fourth year, traditional Medicare benefits would be expanded — adding dental, vision and hearing aids — and the eligibility age would be slowly lowered, allowing people to buy-in to Medicare if they chose to do so. In year one, for instance, the eligibility age would be 55 and by year three, it would be 35. A Medicare transition plan would be available through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, but open to anyone who wanted to enroll. Children could be enrolled in the first year after enactment.

People could choose to keep other insurance coverage during this transition period.


Could people decide to opt out?
No, though they could enter into private contracts with health care providers and pay for those services themselves (see the private insurance question above). However, the bill says every resident of the United States would have the universal health care benefits, and people can’t opt out of paying whatever taxes will be assessed to finance the plan.


How would health care providers be affected?
They would have to meet minimum national standards and sign participation agreements, barring them from charging extra fees to patients. They would be paid according to a fee schedule, established by the HHS secretary. A new Office of Primary Health Care would set goals for increasing access to primary care and promote an increase in primary care practitioners.

The HHS secretary also would negotiate prices paid for pharmaceuticals and medical devices.


What about access to care?
The plan includes a “freedom of choice” provision stipulating that people can choose any health care provider, and Sanders has highlighted this part of the plan, saying, “you’ll go to any doctor that you want, you’ll go to any hospital that you want.”
That’s what the bill proposes. But with universal coverage and zero copays, demand for health care services would likely increase. “[T]he Sanders plan would increase demand for health services by eliminating individuals’ direct contributions to care (i.e., by eliminating deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance), but not all increased demand could be met because provider capacity would be insufficient,” the Urban Institute said in a 2016 analysis of Medicare for All, which was similar to the current bill. The Urban Institute incorporated “provider supply constraints” in its estimates. Similarly, a RAND analysis published this yearsaid that “providers’ willingness and ability to provide health care services—including the additional care required by the newly insured and those benefiting from lower cost sharing—would most likely be limited.” The extent of this issue would depend on the change in individual providers’ payments and their responses. RAND said: “As a result, some patients might experience longer wait times for care or face unmet needs.”


How much would the plan cost?
There’s no firm price tag, as many details need to be filled in, but several organizations have produced estimates using varying assumptions.

To put these estimates in context, total national health expenditures were $3.5 trillion in 2017 and are projected to be $47 trillion over 10 years, 2018-2027, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The Urban Institute estimated in 2016 that the Medicare for All plan would increase all national health expenditures by $518.9 billion in 2017 and by $6.6 trillion over 10 years. That report also said the plan would increase federal spending by $32 trillion over 10 years; that’s because spending by private insurers, employers, individuals and states would shift to the federal government.

Kenneth Thorpe, a professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University, estimated in 2016 that the increase in federal spending would be $24.7 trillion over 10 years.

In an estimate published online by Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, estimated Medicare for All would reduce national health spending by $6.3 trillion over 10 years and new government spending would amount to $13.8 trillion over 10 years.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University published a study that, similar to the Urban Institute report, estimated the increased federal spending at $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Of course, health care spending by other payers would decrease.

Sanders’ office and the study author, Charles Blahous, have disagreed about the overall finding of his study. Sanders’ office has said the study shows a net decrease in national health care spending, but Blahous said the “actual cost” would be “substantially greater” because of “unlikely” assumptions he used to estimate the cost, such as a 40 percent reduction in private insurance reimbursement rates to providers.

A RAND Corporation report issued this year estimated a 1.8 percent increase in total health spending if implemented in 2019. (RAND only produced an estimate for that year.) It said spending by the federal government on health care “would increase substantially, rising from $1.09 trillion to $3.50 trillion, an increase of 221 percent,” but, of course, health care spending by employers, individuals, private insurers and state/local governments would decrease substantially, or be eliminated.

The New York Times asked these same think tanks and experts to estimate total health expenditures for next year under Medicare for All, and it also found a wide range of estimates. The Times noted that “the difference between the most expensive estimate and the second-most expensive estimate was larger than the budget of most federal agencies.”

It’s difficult to give a clear cost figure when various assumptions — such as provider pay rates, savings from prescription drug negotiations, utilization of health care — have to be made.


How would it be financed?
The legislation doesn’t include any information on how it would be financed. Instead, Sanders has put forth several suggestions to be debated. They include: payroll taxes, an income-based “premium,” increased taxes on high-income individuals, and fees on major financial institutions. There would also be some tax savings, for instance through eliminating the tax exemption of employer-provided insurance premiums. The employer exclusion “will cost the federal government an estimated $280 billion in income and payroll taxes in 2018,” says the Tax Policy Center.


Do the other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates support this plan?
Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell are co-sponsors of the House version of Medicare for All, H.R. 1384. As for the rest of the 21-person field, The Hill has a breakdown of what every candidate supports regarding changing the health care system.


What else has been proposed in terms of expanding Medicare?
Beyond H.R. 1384, which, like Sanders’ plan, would create a national Medicare program, other legislative proposals would make much less sweeping changes. There are bills to offer a public option based on Medicare through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges, and other legislation that would allow individuals to buy-in to Medicare at age 50. House and Senate bills also call for a Medicaid buy-in option available through the ACA exchanges.
Details on all of those plans are available through an interactive comparison tool by the Kaiser Family Foundation.



.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Did Joe Biden overstate Democratic voters’ opposition to ‘Medicare for All’?

By Victoria Knight on
Tuesday, November 26th, 2019


AP_19325095892462.jpg

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate on Nov. 20, 2019, in Atlanta. (AP)


When the subject of "Medicare for All" came up during the Democratic debate last week, former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the majority of his party does not favor it.

"The fact is that right now the vast majority of Democrats do not support Medicare for All," he said, adding, "It couldn't pass the United States Senate right now with Democrats. It couldn't pass the House."

This seemed to be a very strong statement, and we weren’t sure that voters’ positions on this issue were as clear-cut as Biden made them out to be, so we asked his campaign where he got the information.


Public opinion
The Biden campaign initially directed us to news coverage of a January 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, which noted that the majority of Americans generally oppose Medicare for All if they hear arguments that frame the program as requiring Americans to pay more taxes or leading to delays in testing and treatment. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

On the flip side, though, when -- in the same poll -- Medicare for All was described as guaranteeing health insurance as a right for all Americans, or that it would eliminate health insurance premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs, the majority favored the national health plan.

That poll, now nearly a year old, found that when simply asked, 56% said they did favor having "a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, where all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan."

Those percentages, though, reflected the views of all Americans, not just Democrats. The same poll broke down respondents’ answers by political party and showed that 81% of Democrats favored creating a national health plan.

The KFF Health Tracking Poll, done monthly, indicates Democrats’ support for Medicare for All has weakened, but not entirely. Its most recent version, published in November, revealed large majorities of Democrats support a public option (88%) and Medicare for All (77%). KFF's January 2019 tracking poll has 85% of Democrats favoring a Medicare buy-in.

"The majority of Democrats do support Medicare for All, but Medicare for All is not as popular as public option or a Medicare buy-in," said Ashley Kirzinger, who is the associate director for public opinion and survey research at KFF.

Other polls show similar results: support for Medicare for All among Democrats but stronger support for the incremental approaches Biden backs.

A September NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, for instance, found 67% of Democrats said they supported adopting Medicare for All. The public option fared better, with 75% of Democrats supporting the proposal.

"The data … does show majority support among Democratic voters (whether that reaches a "vast majority" depends upon your interpretation), but higher support for a public option,"Jeff Horwitt, senior vice president with Hart Research Associates wrote in an email. Hart Research Associates conducted the NBC/WSJ poll.

The Biden campaign also directed us to a September KFF Health Tracking Poll that showed that 55% of Democrats prefer a candidate who would build on the existing Affordable Care Act, while 40% of Democrats prefer a candidate who would replace the ACA with Medicare for All.

And one more from the Biden campaign -- a CNN article citing a July CNN and SSRS poll that found almost half (48%) of all respondents who lean Democratic said the national program should not replace private insurance, while 31% said that it should.

That same CNN/SSRS poll, though, had 85% of respondents who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents responding "yes" when asked if the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if it would require higher taxes.

The numbers from these various polls seem to communicate a range of opinions among Democrats about Medicare for All.

Robert Blendon of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health said he thinks Biden’s statement rings true based on a poll he helped conduct, in partnership with the Commonwealth Fund and The New York Times.

Rather than asking survey respondents if they favored Medicare for All, the survey asked them to choose among Medicare for All, improving the existing ACA or replacing the ACA with state health plans.

For registered Democrats, the results were close between two of the proposals: 46% preferred Medicare for All and 45% preferred improving the existing ACA. Only 7% preferred replacing the ACA with state health plans. In this survey, Medicare for All was not preferred by a majority of Democrats.
But Blendon noted that survey respondents often will say yes to a "one-off question" about whether they support something and that answer can change once they have to choose among options, such as in his organization’s survey.

"The answer is that Democrats are divided on whether or not they want to build on the ACA or whether they want to do Medicare for All," he said.
Congressional support and another context
Horwitt also made the point that it wasn’t clear in Biden’s statement which group of people he was referencing.

"I recall hearing the statement in real-time, but in looking now at just the statement from Biden below, it is unclear to me if he is talking about elected Democrats or Democratic voters when he references the "vast majority," Horwitt wrote via email.

While the Biden campaign did direct us to public opinion polls, they also pointed out that the Senate and House Medicare for All bills are "only sponsored by a fraction of the members of the respective Democratic caucuses that would be needed to secure passage."

The Senate Medicare for All bill, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, has 14 co-sponsors, while the House’s Medicare for All bill, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, has 118 co-sponsors. (There are currently 233 Democrats in the House and 45 Democrats plus two independents in the Senate.)


During the recent presidential primary debates, Biden said: "The fact is that right now the vast majority of Democrats do not support Medicare for All." Based on a cursory review of polls, this statement appears off-base. After all, most polls find that when Democrats are simply asked if they support Medicare for All, they answer "yes."

However, when those same polls dig deeper into this support by asking about the favorability of other Democratic-favored health policies -- Medicare for All, the public option or expansions of the Affordable Care Act -- or if such a Medicare for All program should replace private insurance, this support becomes weaker. The polls do seem to suggest support among Democrats for the moderate reforms Biden backs. Still, the evidence is lacking to support Biden’s claim that a "vast majority" of Democrats oppose Medicare for All.

For these reasons, we rate this statement Mostly False.



.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
After surviving a medical assassination attempt, Hell No to Medicare for all. If you are enemy of the corporate/government state, you will be denied medical treatment and die. This is based on my extensive analysis and investigation into the medical system.

When you get medical treatment, they can probe you for any weakness that they can later exploit. We need cameras in the operating room and when you're discussing something with your doctor. This is your life, privacy needs to take a backseat to making sure medical professionals are held accountable. The opioids crisis was started by them over prescribing pain medication.



HIPAA_Screenshot.png


Most people run their mouth off about their medical condition, and it is clear that information about your health is being freely exchanged. I might as well have a camera in their watching that piece of shit doctor. This HIPAA scam is a mind game so that doctors can beat malpractice lawsuits, through false documentation of your medical care. A nurse getting paid six figures to 'witness' what the doctor said to you is a stupid practice and adds to costs when a camera would be much more objective.

I have pulled medical records with factual lies from my meetings with doctors, refuse to diagnose your condition, or outright lie to you.
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Make no mistake: Medicare for All would cut taxes for most Americans

Not only would universal healthcare reduce taxes for most people, it would also lead to the biggest take-home pay raise in a generation for most workers

medicare.jpg




Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
| 10/25/2019 | www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/medicare-for-all-taxes-saez-zucman

The debate about healthcare has been at the center of the Democratic primaries, yet it is hard to make sense of the conversation. For some, public universal health insurance – such as Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All bill – would involve massive tax increases for the middle class. For others, it’s the opposite: Medicare for All would cut costs for most Americans. Who is right?


The starting point of any intelligent conversation about health in America must be that it’s a cost for all of us – and a massive one. The United States spends close to 20% of its national income on health. Elderly Americans and low-income families are covered by public insurance programs (Medicare and Medicaid, respectively), funded by tax dollars (payroll taxes and general government revenue). The rest of the population must obtain coverage by a private company, which they typically get via their employers. Insurance, in that case, is funded by non-tax payments: health insurance premiums.


Although they are not officially called taxes, insurance premiums paid by employers are just like taxes – but taxes paid to private insurers instead of paid to the government. Like payroll taxes, they reduce your wage. Like taxes, they are mandatory, or quasi-mandatory. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, it has become compulsory to be insured, and employers with more than 50 full-time workers are required to enroll their workers in a health insurance plan.


A frequent objection to calling health insurance premiums a tax is that people have some choice. Can’t the poor, the argument goes, enroll in cheap health plans? If you start calling health insurance premiums a tax, then shouldn’t we also call spending on food and clothes a tax?


This argument, however, is wrong, because cheap healthcare does not exist. There are cheap meals, there are cheap clothes, but there is no cheap way to treat your heart attack, to cure your cancer, or to give birth. Cheap health insurance means no healthcare when you need it. All wealthy nations, even those that try hard to control costs, spend 10% of their national income on health – the equivalent of $7,500 a year per adult in the United States. The view that healthcare services are like haircuts or restaurant meals – services for which there is a product tailored to any budget – is a myth. Healthcare is like education: everybody needs it, regardless of their budget, but it’s expensive. That’s why all advanced economies, except the United States, fund it through taxation.


The main difference between the insurance premiums currently paid by American workers and the taxes paid by workers in other countries is that taxes are based on ability to pay. The income tax has a rate that rises with income. Payroll taxes are proportional to income, at least up to a limit. Insurance premiums, by contrast, are not based on ability to pay. They are a fixed amount per covered worker and only depend on age and the number of family members covered. Insurance premiums are the most regressive possible type of tax: a poll tax. The secretary pays the same amount as the executive.


Many people believe that the United States has a progressive tax system: you pay more, as a fraction of your income, as you earn more. In fact, if you allocate the total official tax take of the United States across the population, the US tax system looks like a giant flat tax that becomes regressive at the very top. And if you add mandatory private health insurance premiums to the official tax take, the US tax system turns out to be highly regressive. Once private health insurance is factored in, the average tax rate rises from a bit less than 30% at the bottom of the income distribution to reach close to 40% for the middle class, before collapsing to 23% for billionaires.


The health insurance poll tax hammers the working class and the middle class. At the bottom of the distribution, it’s not as onerous as sales and payroll taxes. But that’s because many low-income Americans rely on a family member to cover them, enroll into Medicaid, or go uninsured. For the middle-class, the burden is enormous. Take a secretary earning $50,000 a year, who has employer-sponsored health insurance at a total cost of $15,000. In reality her labor compensation is $65,000 (that’s what her employer pays in exchange of her work), but the secretary only gets $50,000. The executive earning $1,000,000 also pays the same $15,000 for his healthcare. This is a terrible funding mechanism.


Funding healthcare via insurance premiums would be acceptable if this private poll tax was small. When the system of private health insurance developed initially, the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance was moderate, the equivalent of 0.5% of national income in the 1950s. Today, however, it is huge: 6% of national income, almost as much as payroll Social Security taxes. The Affordable Care Act increased the pool of Americans eligible for Medicaid and subsidized the purchase of private insurance for low-income people not covered by their employer. But it provided no relief for workers who fund their healthcare through a huge and growing poll tax.


This situation is not sustainable. Most countries have understood this a long time ago. Health and retirement benefits started, like in the United States, as negotiated arrangements between employees (represented by their unions) and employers. But the task of funding health and retirement was then gradually entrusted to the government. Private premiums morphed into regular taxes, based on ability to pay. In the United States, this transformation has not happened yet for healthcare – leading to the crises we are in now.


This is the context needed to understand the current debate at the heart of the presidential elections. Proposals such as Medicare for All would replace the current privatized poll tax by taxes based on ability to pay. Some believe that it would result in a big tax increase for America’s middle class. But the data show that it would, in fact, lead to large income gains for the vast majority of workers.


Take again the case of a secretary earning $50,000 in wage and currently contributing $15,000 through her employer to an insurance company. With universal health insurance, her wage would rise to $65,000 – her full labor compensation. With an income tax of 6% – which, if applied to a base large enough, would be enough to fund universal health insurance – she would have to pay about $4,000 more in tax. But the net gain would be enormous: $11,000. Instead of taking home $50,000, the secretary would take home $61,000.


On TaxJusticeNow.org, any interested reader can simulate the effect of replacing private health insurance premiums by taxes – progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, consumption taxes, or broad taxes on consumption or all of national income. This simulator that we developed is open-source, user-friendly, and based on a systematic exploitation of all available statistics about who earns what and pays what in taxes and health insurance in America.


As one illustration, it’s possible to see how the tax plans of the leading Democratic primary candidates would affect tax rates for each group of the population. For instance, Bernie Sanders’s tax proposals would be enough to replace all existing private insurance premiums, while leaving 2.6% of national income to cover the uninsured and spend on other programs. Under such a plan, the 9 bottom deciles of the income distribution would gain income on average, as would the bottom of the top 10%. With smart new taxes—such as broad income taxes exempting low wages and retirees—it is possible to make the vast majority of the population win from a transition to universal health insurance.


Supporters of Medicare for All are right. Funding universal health insurance through taxes would lead to a large tax cut for the vast majority of workers. It would abolish the huge poll tax they currently shoulder, and the data show that for most workers, it would lead to the biggest take-home pay raise in a generation.


  • Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are economics professors at the University of California, Berkeley, and the authors of The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, from which this essay is adapted
 

MCP

International
International Member

file-20191001-173375-kx5th2.jpg

How the US could afford ‘Medicare for all’

Health care is Americans’ number-one priority, based on recent polls, so it’s no wonder it’s been a hot topic in the Democratic primary.

Every candidate is offering a plan, ranging from Joe Biden’s Affordable Care Act upgrade to Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” that would abolish private health insurance. Even the president is joining the bandwagon and unveiled his own Medicare plan.

On the high end, a full-scale single-payer heath care system would come at a steep price: I estimate about US$40 trillion over 10 years.

There is, however, a simpler and less costly path toward single-payer, and it may have a better chance of success: simply strike the words “who are age 65 or over” from the 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act that created Medicare, which would mean virtually everyone would be covered by the existing Medicare program.

I have been researching health care for over four decades. While this idea wouldn’t be single-payer – in which the government covers all health care costs – and private insurers would continue to operate alongside Medicare, I believe it would be a substantial improvement over the current system. And it might even be politically possible.

Medicare and what it was meant to be

Striking the words “over 65” from the Medicare statutes was an idea championed by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Moynihan, who held several roles in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, was an original architect of the War on Poverty and a central figure in the evolution of health care policy in the latter half of the 20th century.

Many original Medicare advocates intended it to be the basis for universal health insurance. A key reason it serves so well as the foundation is that it includes a funding mechanism – the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax paid by you and your employer, alongside modest monthly premiums.

In addition, its limited scope, skimpy benefits and cost-sharing keep costs low. Medicare covers only a little more than half of participants’ health care spending, forcing many elderly Americans to buy private insurance and pay significant out-of-pocket expenses. A little over 11 million poorer participants also rely on Medicaid, especially for long-term care.

For example, Medicare covers hospitalization only after a person has paid the $1,364 deductible, and there’s a copay of $341 per day after 60 days and double that beyond 90. It also covers only 80% of the cost of doctor visits and the use of medical equipment – though only after a $185 deductible and the monthly $136 premium.

Still, it provides meaningful protection against the potentially crippling cost of accident or illness.

Giving Medicare to everyone

In its pure form, a single-payer program would make the government everyone’s insurer, largely replacing private insurance.

This is the way health insurance is provided in the United Kingdom and Canada. Sanders’ plan would follow this framework, even extending it to cover long-term care.

A simple expansion of Medicare would be more like a hybrid system in which the government program exists alongside private insurers, with residents free to use any combination of the two.

One of the reasons single-payer health care has failed in the United States is that even though it might eventually lower costs, it would require substantial new taxes up front. Sanders’ plan, as I noted earlier, would cost around $4 trillion a year. But because of its lower benefit levels and built-in revenue stream, a simple Medicare expansion would cost substantially less, maybe only half that.

In 2018, the last year with complete data, nearly 60 million Americans received Medicare benefits – including most elderly Americans and 9 million who were disabled. Total spending was over $700 billion that year, or an average of $11,800 per recipient.

A simple expansion would add the nondisabled population under age 65 to Medicare: 28 million without insurance, 66 million covered by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Plan and 176 million with private insurance. For the purposes of my calculations, which I last conducted earlier this year, I assume everyone eligible for Medicare would take advantage of the program.

Because the vast majority of the new enrollees would be younger and healthier than current Medicare participants, the cost per person would be much less, or about $5,527 for the once uninsured and $3,593 for everyone else. With a few other calculations, the total annual price tag of an expansion would tally around $836 billion.

Substantial savings

Something that often gets lost in the debate over the cost of single-payer is that its implementation would lead to a host of savings that make the bill to taxpayers a lot less than the sticker price.

I estimate that a full single-payer system would likely save about 20% of current spending, or nearly $700 billion in 2019. A simple Medicare expansion – the kind I’m suggesting here – wouldn’t save quite as much, but it’d still be significant.

So where would the savings come from?

To begin with, studies show that medical billing is more expensive in the U.S. than in many countries.

The U.S. health care system spends twice as much as Canada, for example, because more “payers” means more complexity. Savings from a simple Medicare expansion could reduce this waste by about $89 billion a year.

Another source of savings is on insurance administration. Private insurers spend more than 20% of total expenditures on overhead, compared with around 2% for traditional Medicare. Savings from moving everyone to Medicare would approach around $200 billion because of economies of scale, lower managerial salaries and more meager marketing expenses.

A third way a simple Medicare expansion would yield savings is by reducing the ability of hospital networks with market power to overcharge private insurers. By using its market power to negotiate lower prices, Medicare pays prices barely half as high and is able to pay 22% less for the same services as do private health insurers. If we all paid Medicare prices, we would save nearly $400 billion on hospital overcharging.

Making conservative estimates, and assuming that the expanded Medicare would only cover services it already does, these three areas then would save $220 billion, bringing the cost down to $618 billion.

One small step

While $618 billion still seems like a hefty price tag, taxes wouldn’t have to be raised much to pay for it.

For starters, most everyone would pay the premiums already charged by Medicare. This would generate an additional $210 billion in revenue.

In addition, a Medicare expansion would reduce the need for two current insurance subsidies: one for employer-provided insurance plans and another that the ACA provides insurers. This would save about $161 billion.

This leaves about $246 billion that would still need to be raised through additional taxes. This could be done with an increase in the Medicare tax that gets deducted from your paycheck. The tax, which is split evenly between employee and employer, would need to rise to 5.9% from 2.9% today. This would amount to just under $15 a week for the typical employee.

Campaigns for universal health insurance coverage have failed in the United States when they run up against the cost of providing coverage. Medicare, America’s greatest success in advancing health care, succeeded precisely because it was limited and had its own dedicated funding streams.

We might learn from this example. Rather than jump all the way to a comprehensive single-payer system like the one Sanders favors, we could take a step along the way at a fraction of the cost by simply expanding Medicare to everyone who wants it.
 
Top