Medicare for All: What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?

Daily Dose of Reason ^ | July 20, 2019 | Michael J. Hurd

[huckfillary]

Medicare for All”. Who can argue with that? No more struggles with medical care. No more worries about cost or insurance. You simply go to the doctor … and it’s free.

Why SHOULD you have to worry about money?

There are so many fallacies here. One you will hear little about in the coming presidential campaign: the rights of doctors. Also the rights of nurses, and all the allied health care professionals.

Kamala Harris — the last I checked — was the new front runner for the Democratic Party, at least according to the media. A few weeks back, Harris said we simply have to get rid of private health insurance. Her comrades say the same thing. HOW we will do that remains unclear. Will she issue an edict on 1/21/21, demanding that health insurance companies be immediately disbanded? Will the government simply nationalize private insurance companies, invading their offices and seizing their assets, as in a banana republic?

But there’s another factor, regardless of how private insurance is handled. Will doctors be permitted to contract with patients on a private basis? Will hospitals be able to do the same? What if doctors and/or patients don’t want to deal with the government? Or will the federal government MANDATE that all doctors must receive their payment through the government, following all the government’s rules and procedures?

That’s the key. Because once you violate the rights of doctors to make mutually agreeable deals with patients, then you violate the rights of patients at the same time.

Perhaps you’re callous and stupid enough not to care about the doctors. “I’m entitled to my medical care. It’s my right. I couldn’t care less about the people providing it”. Through their evasiveness and non-thinking, I’m guessing that’s about where half the American population is, appallingly. I would place all serious leftist Democrats in this category, because that’s the reasoning they imply when they scream, “Medicare for all”.

But even if we forget the doctors and their rights, as if they were inanimate objects, what about yourself? What does it mean for YOU if you want to take an offer negotiated by a particular hospital or health care provider? What if your life depended on it? What if you don’t have AOC’s, Bernie Sanders’ or Elizabeth Warren’s connections, and you need surgery NOW? You and a hospital negotiate a loan. But the federal government says you must wait your turn, perhaps many months as in Canada or Britain, where they have Medicare for all. What then?

Imagine if the government passed a law saying nobody can home school. Or nobody can go to a private school. EVERYBODY must go to a government-run, government-run school. Would you call it Communism then? And if you would, is Communism what you want for your body, mind and overall well-being? Are you willing to stake your life on the word of politicians who routinely lie every moment of their public lives?

Do you SERIOUSLY think accountable people considered worthy and competent by the likes of our politicians will ensure you live the long, healthy life to which you feel you’re entitled?

If you ARE that stupid, then I suppose you deserve what you get.

I sincerely hope people don’t fall for it when they’re served up the idea of “Medicare for all” in the coming year. So much is at stake here. Our lives literally depend on it.

[butlerweave]

Everyone in the World ?

[Rurudyne]

The only well paying jobs in the nation that are for unskilled workers who haven’t a clue are in Congress, various State legislatures or even city halls.

There seems to also be a relationship between being more progressive and where having skills (besides criminal skills) gets in the way of political advancement.

[Bonemaker]

“Medicare for All: What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?”

Doctors would find a new line of work?

[BenLurkin]

[Texas Eagle]

Medicare for all would be fine if it included members of Congress.

[Jim Noble]

Medicare for all has good and bad points.

What we have now can’t last five years.

[Old Yeller]

Literally Medicare for all the world if the borders are going to be wide open.

[Rusty0604]

NHS cancer scans left unread for weeks because of pension row
Hospitals cut services as consultants stop doing overtime to avoid huge tax bills

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/19/nhs-cancer-scans-unread-pension-row

[Will88]

And they do not mean ‘medicare’ for all. Medicare has many co-payments and responsibilities for those covered by it. What they really mean is ‘Medicaid’ for all. They sure don’t expect their core constituency to make significant co-payments.

[Captain Peter Blood]

The single biggest questions is how and who will pay for it.

Your looking at a minimum of at least another $4 Trillion to pay for it. That money is not there.

[grumpygresh]

Medicine sucks. Doctors have the highest suicide rate of any profession.

I think the bureaucrats should take over everything concerning patient care. They already practice medicine now as it is.

[kabar]

The Medicare Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2026. After that, by law benefits will be reduced to equal revenue received. 40% of Medicare is funded by the General Fund. By law, the premiums for Medicare Part B only cover 25% of the actual costs. The other 75% comes from the General Fund. And in case people don’t know, Medicare Part B premiums are now means tested with the premium levels tied to income. The average Medicare recipient receives three time more in benefits than they contributed to the system.

And 9 out of every 10 Medicare recipients have private insurance to cover the costs not covered by Medicare, I.e., Medigap insurance. Private insurance will not be going away.

[kabar]

What are the good points?

[Auntie Dem]

I've been on Medicare for over a year now. I'm convinced Medicare wants me (and all you) dead—and the sooner the better. They won't cover prescriptions that really make a difference in my diabetes, they won't pay for certain lab tests, nor some doctor visits. Cutting corners with everyone else’s lives is OK for bureaucrats and politicians, but you can bet they won't tolerate Medicare in THEIR lives.

[kabar]

Congress is covered by Medicare and SS. It has been mandatory since 1983.

[Texas Eagle]

Riiiiight. I’m sure they have a slightly different version of both.

[asinclair]

I'm on Medicare. My biggest complaint is that CMS, the billing arm of Medicare, has yet to send me an accurate bill for two years. Indeed, their payment processing is designed to overcharge its “customers”. I overpaid $800 because of the inaccurate billing. Feh.

[kabar]

No, the same as all government employees have. The 1983 agreement Reagan and Tip O’Neill worked out to save SS and Medicare for 75 years made all new hire government employees pay into SS. They were already paying into Medicare. I say that advisedly having worked for the federal government for 36 years.

[Yosemitest]

Just like the Veterans' Administration's health care, a great deal can go wrong !

ObamaCare failed, and was designed to fail from the start.
Now the DemocRATS want to change the language and go for "Medicare For ALL" !

Don't fall for their LIES !
Don't buy any of them !

Remember the past ?



Only idiots and the evil voted for Obama, or ANY of the Democrats.
AND NOW, WE CAN ADD "Establishment Republicans" TO THAT LIST, ALSO!
They've lied to us, constantly, and really are "Collapsing the System".
And now, these "Useful IDIOTS" who voted for them, are buying the LIES that "Obamacare was designed to work." ?
It was designed to fail from the start.
THEN ... THEY GO TO THE "SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM".

Flashback: Obama's Campaign to Transition to Single Payer Health Care (VIDEO)


obama master plan on health careover the years in his own words--SINGLE PAYER!!! ( 3:38 )

They've been sucking our wallets dry for over four years now on the "Obamacare" LIE.
AND NOW THEY WANT MORE TAXES ?
Our Founding Fathers would have hung them already!

Lets review:

Who was it that cut future funding for Medicare by $575 billion?

...the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters... The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.
The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years ...

Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim.
Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim
that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.
The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare.

"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson [DEMOCRAT] made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." "

Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?

The History of Medicare

In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.

Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

...(continued at link)

So DemocRATS,

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSURING THE FAILURE
OF THE MEDICARE/MEDICAID PROGRAM,
and now YOU DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A. ECONOMY!!!

So DEMOCRATS ... SHUT UP!!!

You have no integrity!!!

And you "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" ...
You need to SHUT UP ALSO,
because y'all funded everything they asked for !

Sen Mark Kirk's statement Thursday, Dec 1, 2011 ...

"There are 55 million Social Security beneficiaries that will see little or no extra cash from this 2012 tax holiday;
instead, the dedicated payroll contributions meant to pay for future benefits are being diverted from the Trust Fund
and replaced with Treasury debt that does not even have a AAA credit rating.
Social Security was designed to be independent and free from the danger of Congressional manipulation,
and maintaining the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and general government funding is the best way to maintain the solvency of this important program.
Neither bill protects the Social Security Trust Fund
so I voted no. "

It's not our fault that DEMOCRATS raided the Social Security Trust Fund.
Let's remember ...

Not ALL are to blame for the empty lock box.

It's the Democrats Communists.

Let's take a deeper look.

Obama: "I Don't Want the Folks who Created the Mess to do a lot of Talking" "

Okay, then the DEMOCRATS, AND the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS",
need to SHUT UP ! ! !