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

[Anonymous]

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

The only reason those countries have been able to have a robust socialized medicine scheme is that they have a strong merit based immigration (except Germany, for a couple months at one point when Merkel opened the floodgates). I honestly thought Bernie knew this, until one of the debates.

Someone advocating M4A wont be getting my vote, until immigration gets fixed. Can we take care of our own? Yes. Can we take care of our own and everyone else in the world? No.

[Anonymous]

Not a bot it should say. Medicare for alll.

[Anonymous]

Is this now the Republican spin now that Trump and his Merry Gang are drowning in scandal. Suddenly bring up healthcare? Dems have it covered. Vote Dem 2020!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean my precious private health insurance that goes up 20% a year and has a $5K deductible? Oh yeah, lets preserve *that*.

Exactly. My "insurance" covers so little that I'm postponing a procedure I need until I reach Medicare. I'm a bit uncomfortable at times, but it isn't a threat to my health - and I just can't afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a small procedure (I'd estimate less than 5 minutes), especially after I'm paying almost $900 a month for the "insurance."

I bet that all the liberals who said it was "worth it" for me to have much worse insurance (and at a higher cost) so that low-income people can get free care will sing a different tune if THEY are the ones who end up with worse coverage. I even had a liberal on this forum tell me that I should be willing to give up life-saving medical care (if it came to that) so that poor people can get the treatments they need. Now I ask you: which one of you liberals is willing to sacrifice your life and burden your family with an avoidable loss so that other people can get insurance? Show of hands, please.

Again, what is the alternative where then someone else is not harmed, where people are not hitting lifetime max, where sick people can get insurance? Lots of complaining about what we have; zero solutions.

Medicare for all + private = the best plan

[Anonymous]

I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.

Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.

tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean my precious private health insurance that goes up 20% a year and has a $5K deductible? Oh yeah, lets preserve *that*.

Exactly. My "insurance" covers so little that I'm postponing a procedure I need until I reach Medicare. I'm a bit uncomfortable at times, but it isn't a threat to my health - and I just can't afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a small procedure (I'd estimate less than 5 minutes), especially after I'm paying almost $900 a month for the "insurance."

I bet that all the liberals who said it was "worth it" for me to have much worse insurance (and at a higher cost) so that low-income people can get free care will sing a different tune if THEY are the ones who end up with worse coverage. I even had a liberal on this forum tell me that I should be willing to give up life-saving medical care (if it came to that) so that poor people can get the treatments they need. Now I ask you: which one of you liberals is willing to sacrifice your life and burden your family with an avoidable loss so that other people can get insurance? Show of hands, please.

Again, what is the alternative where then someone else is not harmed, where people are not hitting lifetime max, where sick people can get insurance? Lots of complaining about what we have; zero solutions.

Medicare for all + private = the best plan

Only if the extra taxes is costs are put on people in the top 5% of earners. Middleclass doesn’t want to pay for everyone else anymore, all the while still having to pay for themselves.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't know how many countries do it like us -- our system is highly inefficient. People change jobs frequently and take breaks in between jobs. Tying health care with your job doesn't make a lot of sense.

Check out Andrew Yang's plan. You will not lose your current health plan but eventually the public plan will outcompete your private plan and provide better services.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't know how many countries do it like us -- our system is highly inefficient. People change jobs frequently and take breaks in between jobs. Tying health care with your job doesn't make a lot of sense.

Check out Andrew Yang's plan. You will not lose your current health plan but eventually the public plan will outcompete your private plan and provide better services.

Beware people making lofty promises with zero proven experience to deliver them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.

Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.

tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access

People who are not well off (Americans, no illegals) couldn't afford healthcare even pre ACA. So, unless the price goes down dramatically, people in the median income bracket can't afford to buy private insurance. The only way to control costs is for the government to regulate it like utilities.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't know how many countries do it like us -- our system is highly inefficient. People change jobs frequently and take breaks in between jobs. Tying health care with your job doesn't make a lot of sense.

Check out Andrew Yang's plan. You will not lose your current health plan but eventually the public plan will outcompete your private plan and provide better services.

So you're saying I will get a better plan. With better service. And it won't cost me $900/month. And I bet I even get to keep my doctor!

(Where have Imehaed this before?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.

Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.

tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access

People who are not well off (Americans, no illegals) couldn't afford healthcare even pre ACA. So, unless the price goes down dramatically, people in the median income bracket can't afford to buy private insurance. The only way to control costs is for the government to regulate it like utilities.

And it's not just that medical costs are so insanely high, but that they are "hidden" at the point of service.

For example, I'm the PP with an "issue" making me uncomfortable, and which can be fixed with a very minor, 5-minute procedure. But Obamacare has a $6,000 deductible, so I'm trying to hold off until Medicare. BUT if it were only $1000, I might consider doing it now. BUt here's the kicker: I can't get a cost ahead of time! The doctors (yes, I've asked a few) all say the same thing: we won't know what it will cost you until we put it through your insurance. And I'll say, but what is the "retail" fee? They can't tell me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.

Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.

tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access

People who are not well off (Americans, no illegals) couldn't afford healthcare even pre ACA. So, unless the price goes down dramatically, people in the median income bracket can't afford to buy private insurance. The only way to control costs is for the government to regulate it like utilities.

And it's not just that medical costs are so insanely high, but that they are "hidden" at the point of service.

For example, I'm the PP with an "issue" making me uncomfortable, and which can be fixed with a very minor, 5-minute procedure. But Obamacare has a $6,000 deductible, so I'm trying to hold off until Medicare. BUT if it were only $1000, I might consider doing it now. BUt here's the kicker: I can't get a cost ahead of time! The doctors (yes, I've asked a few) all say the same thing: we won't know what it will cost you until we put it through your insurance. And I'll say, but what is the "retail" fee? They can't tell me!

This.

The whole thing is surreal.

And ACA didn't help a bit. Probably made it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Voting for Warren or Biden anyone that ensures not one person goes bankrupt due to medical bills. Health insurance should be a given. For all. Pay private if you want but no family should lose their house due to cancer or chronic $$ Illness of child or spouse

this

[Anonymous]

I’m just very wary about how any of these plans will be paid for, TBH. HHI 300K ish, both self employed, 2DC. We’ve bought our own insurance forever, and have bought in the exchange since the beginning. We pay 20/25K per year (premiums and deductibles- don’t usually meet deductible). It seems like a lot to me already. I fear we will end up paying even more- perhaps FAR more- for care that will be equal or lesser. I doubt it will be better than what we have now?

I just haven’t seen enough about price/cost controls. I’ve read very mixed ideas about how this will be paid for. I’m wary because we have been told this before (it will be cheaper overall, etc etc) and so far we have only paid more and more and more per year. I’m guessing at 300k we will end up paying even more than now. Hope I’m wrong about that.

[Anonymous]

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.

Vote for your and your family interest first. If you are a democrat and really care about paying for someone's healthcare, just purchase a plan for a neighbor and pay for it.

What a moronic statement. There are enormous economies of scale and negotiated prices with universal coverage. The average family would pay a fraction of what a year in premiums cost for employer sponsored plans. No worrying about changing or losing a job. No exclusions for preexisting conditions. No financial ruin if a family member has the audacity to have a serious illness or gets into an accident. More emphasis on preventative care and wellness because people won’t be as afraid to go to well checks knowing they are covered.

I have a great plan through an employer and I am absolutely in favor of universal care. 10000%.