Replies

To anyone who thinks Medicare for all is a good plan, you should talk to someone who is actually on it, like me. Medicare, at best, is horrible.

Since going on Medicare 7 years ago, I have had two important medical incidents - a detached retina, and prostate cancer.

The detached retina had to be reattached by a highly skilled specialist - one with many years of education and training beyond becoming an MD. She had a laboratory full of VERY expensive optical and electronic equipment. Her bill for the procedure was well over $3,000. Medicare paid less than $150 for "Payment in full".

To find my prostate cancer, a "Fusion Biopsy" was required. This uses an MRI image fed into special prostate ultrasound equipment to match the ultrasound image with the MRI image, and take the biopsy in the proper regions. Again, expensive equipment and trained specialists are required. The bill was over $3,500, and Medicare paid less than $200.

As per US law, the Medicare payment is "payment in full".

For this 'free' insurance, I still must add an additional $4,000 per year, for sundry additional insurance such ad drugs, hospitalization, and Medicare Part B. Keep in mind, that I also paid an additional significant percentage of my income for the last 54 years of working for the 'free' part.

In addition, my wellness doctor for 35 years has had a "full schedule" for the dozen, or so, times I have tried to schedule my annual exam for the last four years. He's been "too busy" to keep me well. I honestly can't blame him. In the past, he has been paid as much as $7,000 for an annual visit. Medicare now pays him $85.

Doctors and hospitals, obviously, must make up for the difference between what Medicare pays and the actual costs, by charging others more than that. Medicare for All would eliminate this option. The end result will be Soviet style lines for hangnails as well as car crashes, and doctors who must moonlight as street vendors in order to feed their families.

A predictable consequence of Medicare for All will be a dumbing down of physicians. Because the prospective income for doctors, already in decline, will plunge in a Medicare for All scenario, the best and brightest young people will compare the years of hard work needed to become a doctor with the greatly reduced financial rewards and will take a different career path. With some exceptions for those genuinely committed to medicine, our doctors will be chosen from those who normally would be rejected by medical schools. As interest in a medical career declines, the schools will take a financial hit and will be forced to reduce the education and training in order to operate at a profit. The impact on the health and well being of our country will be profound and long lasting. Lastly, because the doctors will be part of a nationalized system, shoddy care will proliferate and recourse to malpractice will be curtailed by the same government that will be deciding the level of care to which each patient is entitled.