How would you feel about losing your company-provided health insurance for "medicare for all"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

Dp

You obviously don't have much experience with he Japanese healthcare system. You might also notice it's never held up as a model.

Helpful hint, if you get sick in japan, ask for a US trained physician.

How do they manage to have the most centenarians, do you suppose?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.

Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.

You are lucky. Despite having access to employer health insurance, the plan options have gotten shittier and shittier and more expensive. We had a plan like yours maybe 10 years ago. Now it’s not even a choice. It’s expensive PPO or slightly less but still expensive HDHP, both with massive deductibles.

Check your privilege (and we are white, well educated and well employed!)

Obamacare devastated the insurance industry.

Who cares?! Insurance companies profit off removing your access to care.

No they don't. Obamacare dictates what their profit margins are. There is no incentive for them to negotiate better rates with big pharma and MDs, because they can't keep extra profits.

Insurers just make money off the float, not the premiums. They actually get paid just for holding the money from they time you pay it until it gets paid out. They don't keep the surplus....

[Anonymous]

A big part of the problem, is we have healthcare spending priorities BACKWARDS in this country. We spend huge huge amounts on (often futile) end of life care, while shorting the young.

High deductibles are a huge factor in this. We are UMC and I can tell you that we are waiting MUCH longer to go to the doctor (including the kids), and going less often due to high deductibles. We really have to be careful. I cannot even imagine how much worse these choices are for the true middle class or lower middle class. Clearly high deductibles are there to discourage use and lower premiums, and someone has done the math on this but what real sense does this make!?!? You have a 80-something year old costing massive massive amounts of $$ for treatment that is quite often, completely futile- while thousands of middle class people including kids have to scrimp and hem and haw (should I go? Or shouldn’t I) over seeing a doctor for very basic illness. People are spending so much in healthcare that they can’t afford to actually see the doctor. I’d have to think that this goes sideways often- easily treated illnesses become more serious and costly. How on earth does this make any sense??!!

IMHO these ridiculously high deductibles should be illegal. And we need to talk about limiting:reducing costs on end of life care. But “death panels”! These people are sucking up tons and tons and tons of $ snd resources while their children and grandchildren are forced to delay or go without basic treatments and medications. And I doubt many of them would even want that!! We need to have serious conversations about these things in America.

But: it won’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

Dp

You obviously don't have much experience with he Japanese healthcare system. You might also notice it's never held up as a model.

Helpful hint, if you get sick in japan, ask for a US trained physician.

I referenced Canada, Germany and New Zealand. Why not tackle the examples on the table? Was Japan brought up instead because you think you can argue against it?

That doesn't address the ones that were actually referenced.

As I said, Japan is a totally different country. Let's talk about Canada, Germany, and New Zealand first, since they were brought up first. Or do you think Japan is somehow a counterexample to systems in totally different countries?

I lived there and interacted with the system. That is why I was the second person. To talk about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

Dp

You obviously don't have much experience with he Japanese healthcare system. You might also notice it's never held up as a model.

Helpful hint, if you get sick in japan, ask for a US trained physician.

I referenced Canada, Germany and New Zealand. Why not tackle the examples on the table? Was Japan brought up instead because you think you can argue against it?

That doesn't address the ones that were actually referenced.

As I said, Japan is a totally different country. Let's talk about Canada, Germany, and New Zealand first, since they were brought up first. Or do you think Japan is somehow a counterexample to systems in totally different countries?

I lived there and interacted with the system. That is why I was the second person. To talk about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a doctor, I'll just stop working. The govt will not dictate what I charge. If I'm a pharma company, I just move my Enterprise overseas. You will not dictate my business. If you don't want it, don't buy it.

Insurance companies dictate all of this now, but worse.

I don't know what country would give you a better deal as a doctor now. Health care costs are lower literally everywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

Dp

You obviously don't have much experience with he Japanese healthcare system. You might also notice it's never held up as a model.

Helpful hint, if you get sick in japan, ask for a US trained physician.

How do they manage to have the most centenarians, do you suppose?

+1

Diet, family support, and exercise.

Korea lacks the second element.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a doctor, I'll just stop working. The govt will not dictate what I charge. If I'm a pharma company, I just move my Enterprise overseas. You will not dictate my business. If you don't want it, don't buy it.

Insurance companies dictate all of this now, but worse.

I don't know what country would give you a better deal as a doctor now. Health care costs are lower literally everywhere else.

#byefelicia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A big part of the problem, is we have healthcare spending priorities BACKWARDS in this country. We spend huge huge amounts on (often futile) end of life care, while shorting the young.

High deductibles are a huge factor in this. We are UMC and I can tell you that we are waiting MUCH longer to go to the doctor (including the kids), and going less often due to high deductibles. We really have to be careful. I cannot even imagine how much worse these choices are for the true middle class or lower middle class. Clearly high deductibles are there to discourage use and lower premiums, and someone has done the math on this but what real sense does this make!?!? You have a 80-something year old costing massive massive amounts of $$ for treatment that is quite often, completely futile- while thousands of middle class people including kids have to scrimp and hem and haw (should I go? Or shouldn’t I) over seeing a doctor for very basic illness. People are spending so much in healthcare that they can’t afford to actually see the doctor. I’d have to think that this goes sideways often- easily treated illnesses become more serious and costly. How on earth does this make any sense??!!

IMHO these ridiculously high deductibles should be illegal. And we need to talk about limiting:reducing costs on end of life care. But “death panels”! These people are sucking up tons and tons and tons of $ snd resources while their children and grandchildren are forced to delay or go without basic treatments and medications. And I doubt many of them would even want that!! We need to have serious conversations about these things in America.

But: it won’t happen.

Yes. People are having difficulty affording basic medications like insulin and epi pens. One day of torturing 85 year old grandma in the hospital (that she probably doesn’t even want) would pay for how much insulin?!?? No one is talking about euthanasia but perhaps far less expensive palliative care in these cases

[Anonymous]

How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

Dp

You obviously don't have much experience with he Japanese healthcare system. You might also notice it's never held up as a model.

Helpful hint, if you get sick in japan, ask for a US trained physician.

I referenced Canada, Germany and New Zealand. Why not tackle the examples on the table? Was Japan brought up instead because you think you can argue against it?

That doesn't address the ones that were actually referenced.

As I said, Japan is a totally different country. Let's talk about Canada, Germany, and New Zealand first, since they were brought up first. Or do you think Japan is somehow a counterexample to systems in totally different countries?

I lived there and interacted with the system. That is why I was the second person. To talk about it.

Why would you expect me to talk about it? I lived in Canada (experienced it as a patient and worked there as a physician). I also have intimate knowledge of Germany and New Zealand.

Start your own fresh post, if you are that wrought up about something totally different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Yes, that would be great but you are correct. It won’t happen.

The reason nothing gets done though is: the large percentage of people like you who have good employer policies+Medicare+Medicaid. Those three combined are the majority of Americans. There isn’t any real political will to fix things for the rest (it really is not a politically winning issue).

But not everyone can get a job with Cadillac health insurance or qualify for Medicaid or Medicare so what to do about these people??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Yes, that would be great but you are correct. It won’t happen.

The reason nothing gets done though is: the large percentage of people like you who have good employer policies+Medicare+Medicaid. Those three combined are the majority of Americans. There isn’t any real political will to fix things for the rest (it really is not a politically winning issue).

But not everyone can get a job with Cadillac health insurance or qualify for Medicaid or Medicare so what to do about these people??

I disagree. Although we technically fall into the category of “good employer health plan” those plans are getting crappier and more expensive by the day. Fewer and fewer people are happy with their employer coverage, us among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Yes, that would be great but you are correct. It won’t happen.

The reason nothing gets done though is: the large percentage of people like you who have good employer policies+Medicare+Medicaid. Those three combined are the majority of Americans. There isn’t any real political will to fix things for the rest (it really is not a politically winning issue).

But not everyone can get a job with Cadillac health insurance or qualify for Medicaid or Medicare so what to do about these people??

I disagree. Although we technically fall into the category of “good employer health plan” those plans are getting crappier and more expensive by the day. Fewer and fewer people are happy with their employer coverage, us among them.

+1 I had a Cadillac plan. Paid zero premium, no deductible, etc. With the same job, the annual the offerings grow worse & worse: now, there is a sizable premium, and the co-pay, co-insurance & deductible keep rising. I have a stable, well-paying job and am healthy. But what if I lose the job, get very sick, have a serious accident, or what if the next company offers a more expensive plan? Something has to give.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no R plan because the vast majority are fine with their healthcare

Employer sponsored healthcare works great for most people so if you have a job you are generally covered

Bring back catastrophic insurance plans for people who are generally well that is what ACA screwed up. I was fine as a single person in my 20s paying 50 bucks a month for catastrophic. Those plans are gone and instead you have to pay 300+ a month (unsubsidied) with a deductible 5 to 10k+ that is similar to most catastrophic plans.

There are also temporary insurance plans for when you are between jobs

For people who are truly destitute there is medicaid

This.

Most people were actually better before ACA.

What Obamacare really did was to screw a hundred million people in order to offer some deficient insurance to twenty million.

says someone who never got cancer and reached their lifetime max.

You were fine in your 20s because you were healthy. As you get older, you get more illnesses.

I'm 50 and have had private insurance for 20 years. We have pre-existing conditions now in the family. Sure I was healthy in my 20s and didn't really need insurance. Now.. I have children and we are getting older and have health issues.

You won't stay young and healthy forever. That is a guarantee.

You are right, I've never had cancer.

But several in my family did. And do you know what they did, even if they were insured?

They went back to be treated in our country of origin. There, they got better treatment than here and at lower costs -- even when paying it all out-of-pocket.

Which goes back to thw fundamental problem in the US: the crazy costs.

Until we fix that, the rest is just about stealing money from some folks in order to subsidize some other folks.

PP here.. ITA.. the costs here are out of control. I have family members in the UK who use NHS for most things, but pay private when they want to be seen urgently. It's still cheaper than insurance here.

But, at the minimum, having expanded medicare access will increase the pool and bargaining power. If the government can't lower healthcare costs because, let's face it, most free market people don't want government to control costs (though they do for utilities, so I don't understand why they can't do for health care costs), then you have to expand the group to lower the cost.

I'm betting people like AOC would be fine with controlling costs, not that I'm a big fan of her's, but just pointing out that no R would ever use the dirty word of "cost regulation".

I'm self employed, and a few years ago, I looked into finding a trade group to get group rates. I ended looking at one of those alternative healthcare insurance, one that is not ACA compliant. I spoke to the rep at length, and asked what would happen if I got cancer (because their plan has a $250K/year max). He told me that the next year, I would get kicked off the plan and they would direct me to... ACA plans. Basically, he is saying that if you are healthy, you don't need ACA, but the minute you get a serious illness, you need ACA.

That's not a great alternative.