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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

+1

Certainly works better than the ACA mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

But in the end, are you satisified? The employer is looking for a plan that is best for their wallet. That is why the employee contribution keeps going up. In the end, the employee has no say in the matter. You can either get the health insurance or not. Your employer and the insurance company are telling you how much it will cost you and how much of a deductible there will be. If the costs are too high for the employer, they just pass it on to the employees. The only way this is a free market working efficiently is if the employer is picking up the entire tab of the insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

+1

Certainly works better than the ACA mess.

-1. Our employer insurance covers less and costs more (with a huge deductible!) each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

But in the end, are you satisified? The employer is looking for a plan that is best for their wallet. That is why the employee contribution keeps going up. In the end, the employee has no say in the matter. You can either get the health insurance or not. Your employer and the insurance company are telling you how much it will cost you and how much of a deductible there will be. If the costs are too high for the employer, they just pass it on to the employees. The only way this is a free market working efficiently is if the employer is picking up the entire tab of the insurance.

Your spelling is way better than your economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

+1

Certainly works better than the ACA mess.

Your employer based insurance is not based on ACA, which is mostly private insurance where employers didn't provide health insurance to the workers, and to the self employed (me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

+1

Certainly works better than the ACA mess.

Your employer based insurance is not based on ACA, which is mostly private insurance where employers didn't provide health insurance to the workers, and to the self employed (me).

Forgot to add.. I'm thankful for ACA because it allowed us to become self employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
THIS. Dems: do you care about these middle earners AT ALL!?!! Because these posts are completely correct. Middle earners can not afford health care while the lower class is getting it for FREE. And what do Dems say? Eh, no biggie. The poor now have BETTER health care access (by a lot) than those who are middle class. Do you not see this??

Getting the middle-class and the poor to fight each other while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. It's like that joke where there's a dozen cookies with a rich guy, a middle-class guy, and a poor guy sitting at the table. The wealthy guy takes eleven of them, then points to the last one and whispers to the middle-class guy, "I think he's trying to steal your cookie."

It was Lenin's plan to eradicate middle class. Same what Democrats do -- they try to break middle class financially, you become poor and fully dependent on government, more power to the government.

[Anonymous]

Which is why Medicare for All works. For everyone. No rich guy no poor guy no middle guy covers all whether rich, poor, or middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
THIS. Dems: do you care about these middle earners AT ALL!?!! Because these posts are completely correct. Middle earners can not afford health care while the lower class is getting it for FREE. And what do Dems say? Eh, no biggie. The poor now have BETTER health care access (by a lot) than those who are middle class. Do you not see this??

Getting the middle-class and the poor to fight each other while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. It's like that joke where there's a dozen cookies with a rich guy, a middle-class guy, and a poor guy sitting at the table. The wealthy guy takes eleven of them, then points to the last one and whispers to the middle-class guy, "I think he's trying to steal your cookie."

It was Lenin's plan to eradicate middle class. Same what Democrats do -- they try to break middle class financially, you become poor and fully dependent on government, more power to the government.

Same in Venezuela -- those millions of people leaving the country ARE the middle class.

The poor love the free stuff, the rich love the oligopoly.

[Anonymous]

Who is this troll? You are writing fiction now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It was Lenin's plan to eradicate middle class.

Czarist Russia didn't have much of a middle-class in the first place. There was a pretty well developed aristocracy and a large serf system. The middle class was fledgling at best.

America's middle-class peaked after World War II when we were still taxing the hell out of the wealthy. It's been stagnant or in decline ever since Reagan.

[Anonymous]

Let's keep this thread for healthcare topics, please.

There's been a good discussion going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

THIS! It should not be tied to employment AT ALL.

I'm not thrilled with employee based health insurance either but it is one place in health care where the free market works fairly effectively. Every year my company shops for insurers who can provide a low rate but still keep the employees satisfied.

+1

Certainly works better than the ACA mess.

Your employer based insurance is not based on ACA, which is mostly private insurance where employers didn't provide health insurance to the workers, and to the self employed (me).

This. Also ACA is a completely different “risk pool”- which is another reason it is more expensive than employer based (usually a healthier risk pool). ACA has a lot of sick people/high risk people by default...

[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.

If I get a raise equal to the value of the previously provided benefits and can shop on the private market for supplementary coverage as needed, no issues. I would be totally fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which is why Medicare for All works. For everyone. No rich guy no poor guy no middle guy covers all whether rich, poor, or middle.

When this country has so many morbidly obese people, Medicare for all won't work.