oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years


    We can always dream....

    The Hill...

    Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll
    By Megan Keller - 08/23/18 11:16 AM EDT

    A vast majority — 70 percent — of Americans in a new poll supports "Medicare for all," also known as a single-payer health-care system. The Reuters–Ipsos survey found 85 percent of Democrats said they support the policy along with 52 percent of Republicans.


    The following work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    - - - - - -

    Friday, November 30, 2018 | Common Dreams

    'Easy to Pay for Something That Costs Less': New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years

    "Medicare for All promises a system that is fairer, more efficient, and vastly less expensive than America's bloated, monopolized, over-priced and under-performing private health insurance system."

    "Medicare for All promises a system that is fairer, more efficient, and vastly less expensive than America's bloated, monopolized, over-priced and under-performing private health insurance system," argued Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs. (Photo: Will Allen / @willallenphoto)

    BURLINGTON, VT - Confronting the question most commonly asked of the growing number of Americans who support replacing America's uniquely inefficient and immoral for-profit healthcare system with Medicare for All—"How do we pay for it?"—a new paper released Friday by researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) shows that financing a single-payer system would actually be quite simple, given that it would cost significantly less than the status quo.

    "We really can get more and pay less."
    —Michael Lighty

    "It's easy to pay for something that costs less," Robert Pollin, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and lead author of the new analysis, declared during a panel discussion at The Sanders Institute Gathering in Burlingon, Vermont, where Pollin unveiled the paper for the first time.

    According to the 200-page analysis of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) Medicare for All Act of 2017, the researchers found that "based on 2017 U.S. healthcare expenditure figures, the cumulative savings for the first decade operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP, without accounting for broader macroeconomic benefits such as increased productivity, greater income equality, and net job creation through lower operating costs for small- and medium-sized businesses."

    The most significant sources of savings from Medicare for All, the researchers found, would come in the areas of pharmaceutical drug costs and administration.

    In a statement, Pollin said his research makes abundantly clear that the moral imperative of guaranteeing decent healthcare for all does not at all conflict with the goal of providing cost-effective care.

    "The most fundamental goals of Medicare for All are to significantly improve healthcare outcomes for everyone living in the United States while also establishing effective cost controls throughout the healthcare system," Pollin said. "These two purposes are both achievable."

    "Medicare for All promises a system that is fairer, more efficient, and vastly less expensive than America's bloated, monopolized, over-priced and under-performing private health insurance system."
    —Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University

    As Michael Lighty, a Sanders Institute fellow and former director of public policy for National Nurses United, put it during the Gathering on Friday, "We really can get more and pay less."

    The official roll-out of PERI's analysis came on the heels of a panel discussion of the moral urgency of Medicare for All, particularly during a time when tens of millions of Americans are uninsured, life expectancy is declining, and thousands of families are bankrupted by soaring medical costs each year.

    Far from being an unaffordable "pipe dream," Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs—who introduced the panel at The Sanders Institute Gathering on Friday—argued that the PERI study shows Medicare for All "offers a proven and wholly workable way forward."

    "Medicare for All promises a system that is fairer, more efficient, and vastly less expensive than America's bloated, monopolized, over-priced and under-performing private health insurance system," Sachs said. "America spends far more on healthcare and gets far less for its money than any other high-income country."




    FWIW I see Politico is currently reporting this:

    Establishment (Dems) looks to crush liberals on Medicare for All

    The coalition that fought Obamacare repeal has fragmented as the party tries to follow through on campaign promises.

    12/10/2018 05:10 AM EST

    It seems unlikely to me that the democrats are going to get into a knock down drag out fight over something that is at most symbolic. No matter what the house might pass on health care it will go nowhere in the senate.

    I caught this a month ago...

    The Dems most likely won't get into the Medicare for All, but...

    Health Care was a major issue in the election.

    From Charles Gaba at ACA Signups.net Mon, 11/12/2018: "Starting in January, the House Democrats will be able to vote on and pass pretty much whatever bills they want, presumably under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Via Robert Pear of the NY Times: The top priorities for Ms. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, and her party’s new House majority include stabilizing the Affordable Care Act marketplace, controlling prescription drug prices and investigating Trump administration actions that undermine the health care law. ...House Democrats plan to hold early votes on proposals to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions, an issue they continually emphasized in midterm races.


    Pre-election poll from Kaiser Family Foundation.




    This is the smart thing to start with

    House Democrats plan to hold early votes on proposals to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions, an issue they continually emphasized in midterm races.

    I saw more than a few polls and articles that convinced me that this caused many to get up off the couch and vote.

    As to all the rest, I was just checking exit polls, and truth be told, it looks pretty mixed. Despite all the polls one can cite saying the general citizenry likes the sound of "Medicare for all", the voters in 2018, don't necessarily fall for it. Here's a short summary from this Forbes link

    Health care Forty-one percent of voters said health care was the most important issue facing the country, followed by immigration (23%), the economy (22%), and gun policy (10%). These four issues ranked in the same positions in the AP VoteCast survey. Fifty-seven percent in the exit poll said the Democrats would better protect health care for people with pre-existing conditions, while 35% said the GOP would. Sixty-nine percent said the health care system needed major changes. In the AP VoteCast survey, 25% of voters wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 27% repeal some parts of it, 13% leave the law as it is, and 34% expand it. 

    I would suspect from that: every change beyond protecting pre-existing will end up being contentious. Because those politically active about health care don't fall for simplistic nostrums. And when they challenge or support a change, the general public will get more educated about it. A reminder that Medicare itself has always been a third rail: tough to make changes, reps don't want to touch it because they get immediate kickback from voters. Every step of the way is a fight and takes some gumption and a lot of work convincing people.

    All that said, major changes gotta come because: providers are like fed up to hell and not going to take it anymore. As more and more boomers see the mess as they access, up close and personal, they'll see that.

    Last but certainly not least: The fate of Buffett, Bezos and Dimon experiment under Dr. Gawande is an important one. What they do could change the current landscape even before lawmakers do much at all.

    Now the numbers...

    Secular Talk Published on Dec 11, 2018

    Medicare for All advocates just received an early holiday present: a new study from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst finds that single-payer health care will save the US $5.1 trillion over a decade while drastically cutting working-class Americans’ health spending. It’s the most robust, comprehensive study yet produced on Medicare for All, which has long been in need of easily citable research...



    Hi Ducky.

    I just received my SS numbers today.

    I have received increases in SS over the last few years.

    All those increases were eaten by my mandatory Medicare payments.

    This time, and this time only, I am receiving an extra $27.00 benefits. ha

    I gave up on Medicare because the only time I have used it in the last few years, it covered nothing.

    Oh, but Richard you might purchase extra......

    I have no extra

    the end

    Plain vanilla Medicare without a supplemental or an Advantage plan can get quite expensive with the out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles.

    I don't know how this is going in the rest of the country but dirty little secret in the NY tri-state area it is increasingly common for providers to accept no insurance at all, including Medicare. You want their help, you gotta pay for it, they don't want to have anything to do with the insurance grind anymore. Especially the good ones that know what they are doing. And I am not talking just m.d.'s, I'm talking like physical therapists and chiropractors too.

    Increasingly all insurance cos. involved micro manage how much outpatient help you get to have, i.e., 12 visits a year. They pay without question when you are an inpatient, if they don't like something they let the hospital try to collect from the patient. It's all sucky. Nobody's happy except the few left that are getting covered for the first time, they are excited, they think they are going to get covered like it says on the Exchange site. Then they find out that first they have to spend $6K a year before being fully covered...

    P.S. Your comment made me curious, just looked up

    the 2018 Medicare Part B premiums:

    If your yearly income is in 2016 was

    $85,000 or less: $134 per month

    $85,000 up to $107,000: $187.50 per month

    over $107,000: $267.90 per month

    Deductible for Part B is quite low, though, only $183 per year.

    I understand that in some states if you are on Medicaid, Medicaid takes over and the Medicare premiums disappear, because the Medicaid insurer is being subsidized by the Medicare, and they just figure in the premium...it's complicated. If you haven't, you might check that out with a social worker.

    Part A's got a considerable deductible per year if you are hospitalized and a real nasty co-pay after 60 days should you happen to be that unfortunate, which is maybe the main reason people feel they need a supplemental?

    The Medicare Part A annual inpatient hospital deductible that beneficiaries pay when admitted to the hospital will be $1,340 per benefit period in 2018, an increase of $24 from $1,316 in 2017. The Part A deductible covers beneficiaries’ share of costs for the first 60 days of Medicare-covered inpatient hospital care in a benefit period. Beneficiaries must pay a coinsurance amount of $335 per day for the 61st through 90th day of a hospitalization ($329 in 2017) in a benefit period and $670 per day for lifetime reserve days ($658 in 2017). For beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities, the daily coinsurance for days 21 through 100 of extended care services in a benefit period will be $167.50 in 2018 ($164.50 in 2017

    I also see that to buy in to Part A if you haven't paid in enough is not chicken feed when combined with the Part B premium:

    Enrollees age 65 and over who have fewer than 40 quarters of coverage and certain persons with disabilities pay a monthly premium in order to voluntarily enroll in Medicare Part A. Individuals who had at least 30 quarters of coverage or were married to someone with at least 30 quarters of coverage may buy into Part A at a reduced monthly premium rate, which will be $232 in 2018, a $5 increase from 2017. Uninsured aged and certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement and who have less than 30 quarters of coverage will pay the full premium, which will be $422 a month, a $9 increase from 2017.



    Finally, know that you're not alone, I remembered reading these stories

    Retired and broke: Bankruptcy filings surging for seniors @ WashingtonPost.com, Aug. 13

    ....Last week, a lot of news outlets jumped on this detail: Data from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project show that bankruptcy filings by people 65 and older are climbing.

    “The social safety net for older Americans has been shrinking for the past couple decades,” according to the paper “Graying of U.S. Bankruptcy: Fallout from Life in a Risk Society.” “The risks associated with aging, reduced income and increased health care costs, have been offloaded onto older individuals. At the same time, older Americans are increasingly likely to file consumer bankruptcy, and their representation among those in bankruptcy has never been higher.”

    There has been more than a twofold increase in the rate at which older Americans file for bankruptcy protection and almost fivefold jump in the percentage of older persons in the bankruptcy system, according to the research compiled by a group that includes Deborah Thorne at the University of Idaho, Pamela Foohey of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Robert Lawless of the University of Illinois College of Law and Katherine Porter of University of California Irvine School of Law.

    “The magnitude of growth in older Americans in bankruptcy is so large that the broader trend of an aging U.S. population can explain only a small portion of the effect,” the researchers wrote. “In our data, older Americans report they are struggling with increased financial risks, namely inadequate income and unmanageable costs of health care, as they try to deal with reductions to their social safety net.”....

    ‘Too Little Too Late’: Bankruptcy Booms Among Older Americans @ NYTimes.com, Aug.5, 2018

    ....The signs of potential trouble — vanishing pensions, soaring medical expenses, inadequate savings — have been building for years. Now, new research sheds light on the scope of the problem: The rate of people 65 and older filing for bankruptcy is three times what it was in 1991, the study found, and the same group accounts for a far greater share of all filers....

    including this warning sign one more than 5 yrs. ago:

    High Health Care Costs Bankrupt One In Four American Seniors @ ThinkProgress.org, Feb 1, 2013

    .....The study found that average “out-of-pocket expenditures in the 5 years prior to death were $38,688 for individuals, and $51,030 for couples in which one spouse dies.” That average was skewed upwards by staggeringly high out-of-pocket medical spending by seniors who had particularly expensive medical needs. All told, a full “25 percent of subjects’ expenditures exceeded baseline total household assets, and 43 percent of subjects’ spending surpassed their non-housing assets,” according to the report.

    The study’s findings underscore the fact that, despite Medicare coverage — which is more efficient and cost-effective compared to private insurance — health care consumption by seniors suffering from costly diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s can often drive up prices to an unsustainable rate....

    It;s good to see some reality based costs for retirement Medicare but you also need to include the thousands of dollars paid over 40+ years into the system before receiving any benefits. I doubt that the about 60 million Americans who pay nothing for their employer  provided HI would want the collectivists snake oil Medicare For All that they would be taxed for the whole cost while receiving less coverage.

    The collectivists virtue signal with an impressive projected $5 trillion saving on an at least $50 trillion in healthcare cost over the next 10 years but do they include the costs of the transition? The Medicare system will have to scale up from serving about 50 million people to about 250 million people and there will be some real costs when a large majority of the 500,000 people in the Health Insurance industry lose their jobs. People who pay most or all their HI costs now may see some savings but ironically, for a collectivist idea, capitalist businesses would enjoy much of this $5 trillion in savings unless they submitted to huge tax increases which I doubt they would. 

    It's encouraging to see the MOTU capitalists responding to this Statist threat  by starting a new non-profit HI system but it will have to incorporate all the HI industry much like the German system does and quickly. Neither of these schemes will have much affect on the about 6% annual rise in health care services costs because they don't have any control over doctor's fee or hospital cost increases. Canada pays their doctors about half of what US doctors make and Scotland pays their's about what a US union plumber makes.

    Perhaps if we put Commie Ocasio-Cortez in charge of healthcare so we can adopt the Cuban model and pay doctors $200 bucks a month and finally achieve healthcare utopia. 

    So do you just have badmouth shit to say, or do you have any concern for peole having healthcare and the continual rising health costs? Cuz the GOP is all Marie Antoinette, "just let them eat opioids", happy to see non-successful capitalists (plus Democrata of course) just die.

    Their attempts to just shut down systems w/o having any replacement in store is just mind-boggling but typical. "Conservative" no longer means thoughtful and thorough and prepared - it's just a pretended values set to beat the opposition with.

    Somebody's got to try something, the system really is at the breaking point.

    It is very very clear that the market approach does not work here, as far as the practice of medicine. Which is a profession that also more of an art and less a science.

    That's because:

    • Professions and the profit motive do not mix. A professional avoids conflict of interest.
    • There is nothing here that fits the definition of fair market value; it is not a fair market. The provider has something that the consumer will do nearly anything to get: a chance at health and even to keep their life.

    Somebody's got to be in charge of it all, that's the only way the practice of medicine is going to work..

    You don't want your firemen or police or accountant to be working the profit motive, why do you want your doctor or physical therapist or insurance peer reviewer thinking that way?

    Actually I think the best of all the bad systems out there is national health service with option to buy private supplemental insurance. Single payer really doesn't cut it that well, either, there are still a lot of perverse incentives inherent, lots of money-driven medicine from Medicare. It's just the best steppingstone to the way things ought to be.

    Research and development is another matter, totally different. I don't see a problem with developers and their backers having to factor in that they are going to have to bargain with national buying services. If more countries did had that situation and inventors had to think about it, we wouldn't have the situation of American insurers being charged a fortune and the stuff being given to Africans for pennies.

    Some of the best health care studies come out of the UK precisely because they will study things that aren't being pushed by the big drug companies.

    P.S. Hon, private hospital insurance for a group aged over 65 would be way way way way waaaay over the $422 per month that Medicare charges for Part A for those who haven't paid enough in. There is substantial savings in spreading risk and for making those under 65 pay in ahead of time. Because most over 65 would otherwise be uninsurable!. Only mega millionaires could afford what most people in that age group get now when illness strikes. I could look up what they charge for Part B to those who haven't paid anything in, but why bother, you are just going to use it to make faux points and I am not here to do your homework. One thing is true: people don't get,, don't realize how wildly expensive medicine has become and how much taxes already subsidize a whole lot of it via hidden measures in the system.

    And after Facebook's shown how evil it is, and Amazon's dog-and-pony-cum-massive-subsidy, I'm not sure people are going to trust the "benign" Bezos-Buffett-Dimon deus-ex-machina approach. Our tech leaders are simply shits like the rest of us, just w more money and bigger self-serving plans.

    When Medicare was enacted no one who got it had put any money into it. Five years later some of the people who got Medicare had paid into it five years but still most of the people getting Medicare hadn't paid a cent into it. The same could be said about Social Security. Yet still we were able to create these programs and to make them more robust over time. Both of these programs vastly increased the health and well being of the aged. We were able to do it without forcing doctors to receive the equivalent of $200 bucks a month. It's true most of these problems and the national programs to help mitigate them are complex and difficult to manage. We have done many difficult and complex things in the past and we will in the future. As we look at the problems that exist the question is, Is there any way to mitigate the problems. The conservative answer is invariably no, nothing can or should be done. Conservatives were against SS and against Medicare to help mitigate the problems of the elderly.  Against SCHIP and CHIP to help deal with the problems of uninsured children. Against Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to help the tens of millions of uninsured get health insurance and care. 

    Oh really Peter?

    Neither of these schemes will have much affect on the about 6% annual rise in health care services costs because they don't have any control over doctor's fee or hospital cost increases. Canada pays their doctors about half of what US doctors make and Scotland pays their's about what a US union plumber makes.

    Educate yourself...


    • (a) Establishing Global Budgets; Monthly Lump Sum-
      • (1) IN GENERAL- The Medicare for All Program, through its regional offices, shall pay each institutional provider of care, including hospitals, nursing homes, community or migrant health centers, home care agencies, or other institutional providers or pre-paid group practices, a monthly lump sum to cover all operating expenses under a global budget.
      • (2) ESTABLISHMENT OF GLOBAL BUDGETS- The global budget of a provider shall be set through negotiations between providers, State directors, and regional directors, but are subject to the approval of the Director. The budget shall be negotiated annually, based on past expenditures, projected changes in levels of services, wages and input, costs, a provider’s maximum capacity to provide care, and proposed new and innovative programs.
    • (b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-
      • (1) IN GENERAL- The Program shall pay physicians, dentists, doctors of osteopathy, pharmacists, psychologists, chiropractors, doctors of optometry, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, physicians’ assistants, and other advanced practice clinicians as licensed and regulated by the States by the following payment methods:
        • (A) Fee for service payment under paragraph (2).
        • (B) Salaried positions in institutions receiving global budgets under paragraph (3).
        • (C) Salaried positions within group practices or non-profit health maintenance organizations receiving capitation payments under paragraph (4).
      • (2) FEE FOR SERVICE-
        • (A) IN GENERAL- The Program shall negotiate a simplified fee schedule that is fair and optimal with representatives of physicians and other clinicians, after close consultation with the National Board of Universal Quality and Access and regional and State directors. Initially, the current prevailing fees or reimbursement would be the basis for the fee negotiation for all professional services covered under this Act. [This establishment of fees is not much different than what we have already. That is, it is similar to what the for-profit health insurance companies have established now as “reasonable and customary fees”.]
        • (B) CONSIDERATIONS- In establishing such schedule, the Director shall take into consideration the following:
          • (i) The need for a uniform national standard.
          • (ii) The goal of ensuring that physicians, clinicians, pharmacists, and other medical professionals be compensated at a rate which reflects their expertise and the value of their services, regardless of geographic region and past fee schedules. [Clarification: logical differences in dramatically different cost-of-living and cost-of-business will be addressed with input from the regions about those differences]
        • (C) STATE PHYSICIAN PRACTICE REVIEW BOARDS- The State director for each State, in consultation with representatives of the physician community of that State, shall establish and appoint a physician practice review board to assure quality, cost effectiveness, and fair reimbursements for physician delivered services.
        • (D) FINAL GUIDELINES- The regional directors shall be responsible for promulgating final guidelines to all providers.
        • (E) BILLING- Under this Act physicians shall submit bills to the regional director on a simple form, or via computer. Interest shall be paid to providers whose bills are not paid within 30 days of submission. [Billing will be done from your physician’s office to your region of the “single-payer”, public agency, which will pay your physician. You will not be sent a bill.]
        • (F) NO BALANCE BILLING- Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare for All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service. [ This is further emphasis that you will not be sent a bill, unless the service is not a covered service by the national health insurance.]
        • (G) UNIFORM COMPUTER ELECTRONIC BILLING SYSTEM- The Director shall create a uniform computerized electronic billing system, including those areas of the United States where electronic billing is not yet established.
        • (A) IN GENERAL- In the case of an institution, such as a hospital, health center, group practice, community and migrant health center, or a home care agency that elects to be paid a monthly global budget for the delivery of health care as well as for education and prevention programs, physicians and other clinicians employed by such institutions shall be reimbursed through a salary included as part of such a budget.
        • (B) SALARY RANGES- Salary ranges for health care providers shall be determined in the same way as fee schedules under paragraph (2).
        • [Capitation payments are payments based on an agreement to provide health care for a specific amount of money for a specific time period, such as a quarter or a year.]
        • (A) IN GENERAL- Health maintenance organizations, group practices, and other institutions may elect to be paid capitation premiums to cover all outpatient, physician, and medical home care provided to individuals enrolled to receive benefits through the organization or entity.
        • (B) SCOPE- Such capitation may include the costs of services of licensed physicians and other licensed, independent practitioners provided to inpatients. Other costs of inpatient and institutional care shall be excluded from capitation payments, and shall be covered under institutions’ global budgets.
        • (C) PROHIBITION OF SELECTIVE ENROLLMENT- Patients shall be permitted to enroll or disenroll from such organizations or entities without discrimination and with appropriate notice.
          • (i) health maintenance organizations shall be required to reimburse physicians based on a salary; and
          • (ii) financial incentives between such organizations and physicians based on utilization are prohibited.



    Posted for reference...


    H.R. 676 Questions and Answers

    What medical care coverage is provided? - See the list of benefits listed in the resolution.

    How much will it cost (or save) me and my family? Funding of the national health insurance is described in Section-211. Most Americans will experience a dramatic savings of money from the fact that the increase in taxes will be small compared to the elimination of payments to for-profit health insurance companies.

    Will I need to pay deductibles and co-pays? - We may need to pay a small co-pay, but not according to this current version of H.R. 676. The result will be up to the debating and final resolution of details for the law. However, House Resolution 676 is based on zero “cost-sharing” (such as no deductibles and no copayments), as noted and discussed here in Section 102 (c).

    What choices will I have? - The BEST choices! Not only will you have full choice of what physician and what medical facilities, but also better choices that are life decisions! See a list here.

    How will my primary care physician get paid? - Primary care physicians who currently have a private practice will maintain their private practice. They will be paid a standard “fee for service” each time they perform a particular service. That will be like what happens today, but your physician will get paid automatically within 30 days from one payer, the “single-payer” instead of dealing with dozens or hundreds of for-profit health insurance companies. Your physician will spend dramatically less time on administrative paperwork and will be able to focus more time and attention on you and other patients. See here

    What private health insurance will I be able to purchase? For-profit health insurance companies will be able to sell health insurance to provide medical coverage for benefits not covered by H.R. 676. Examples would be cosmetic surgery that is personal choice (elective), not other reasons, such as an accident, disease or act of war. See the resolution’s text here.

    Will for-profit health insurance companies convert to non-profit? No. This law establishes one publicly-owned non-profit health insurance program that automatically covers everyone by the operation of one public agency. Having all U.S. residents in one group (sometimes called a “risk pool”) achieves the largest degree of benefit for everyone at the lowest possible cost.

    Where will the employees of those companies be employed when their company stops its operations? Some will work in the new organization. They will have top priority consideration for the new positions. Others will move back to their original profession of health care or be able to spend most or all of their day on health care instead of paperwork. Employees who do not immediately find positions will be eligible for up to two years of unemployment compensation to help them make the transition to a new job or new profession.

    What organization will provide the management of this publicly-owned health insurance program? The structure of the organization will be based on the same ten regional offices that are already in place for the original Medicare program, which is being replaced with an Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.



    These collectivists could have simplified this, for us uneducated, down to one word 'RATIONING' which we already have in Medicaid which is why 25% of doctors refuse to accept its' patients. Rationing is also why the Canadian system has a problem keeping doctors and has 18 month delays to see a GP. and 75% of Canadians have to buy private supplemental insurance. We also already have rationing in  Medicare which is why everyone has to buy private supplemental insurance or pay cash for the 20% Part B doesn't cover along with any dental or optical.

    The claim that most Americans will experience dramatic savings is a bald faced lie when half of the US population, 160 million people, get free or subsidised HI from their employers. 70 million people pay nothing into the system and get free Medicaid and along with Medicare, VA, and Obamacare this leaves 30 million w/o insurance. I don't know how to get these people, who are not the poor and refused to join Obamacare, HI coverage. I do know I don't want brain dead commies using the State to control healthcare and probably destroying my Medicare.

     I do know I don't want brain dead commies using the State to control healthcare and probably destroying my Medicare.

    This is exactly what conservatives like Reagan said about Medicare though he called it socialism not communism. If you were young and the government tried to enact Medicare today you'd be against it.


    All the way back to the Red Scare.

    Then 11 years later in 1961... the commies are coming the commies.

    . 1 minute


    The commies are already here, OGD and the snake oil they are selling today is just as toxic as ever. I'm open to any ideas that might improve our healthcare system so long as they don't depend on an ideology that grows centralized power and is honest about benefits, savings and actual costs.

    If we had adopted a single-payer system 60 years ago we might have a system today that is similar to Canada's with its benefits and limitations, savings and costs. The disruption and unknown or hidden consequences of a radical forced imposition of a new healthcare regime could be devastating.

    If the commies are already here by the standards of the conservatives of the 60's you have joined them with your support of Medicare. It's always that way. 

    Every generation the public has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future by a small group of liberals. Their children accept and support all those changes fought against by their parents and wouldn't change them back if they could. Yet they in their turn will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

    As your predecessors fought against Medicare that you now claim as your own so you will fight against Medicare for all or some other form of universal health care. If democrats succeed in passing it the next generation will support it and claim it as their own. 

    In 20 years it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the next generation of conservatives with signs saying, Get Your God damn Government Hands Off My Obamacare, just as this generation of conservatives walk around with signs saying, Get Your God Damn Government Hands Off My Medicare. The Medicare their conservative predecessors railed against as a commie plot.

    You and other conservatives of today can rail against the commies or socialists but the fact is we are all socialists. The debate now and has always been how much socialism. Each generation of conservatives claims the present amount of socialism isn't socialism at all and claims that amount of socialism as their own but wants no more of it.

    Poof . . .

    The commies are already here?


    I feel a bit sad that it was so easy to leave you looking like a doddering old commie, Poof, trying to hawk a pinko snake-juice cure to the useful idiots.

    A fed judge in Texas has ruled the authoritarian mandate in Obamacare makes the whole shebang unconstitutional so congress will now be tasked to produce something that reflects our values not Marx's.  

    What will happen is the judge’s ruling will be overturned.

    Everything you posted about Canadian health care is a lie.

    She warned this was coming yesterday in another tweet, if you're interested in health policy it's a no brainer to follow her:

    Kliff & Krugman predict:

    Latest Comments