I still want better healthcare.

[PatrickforB]

Like most Americans who are still lucky enough to be working, I have crummy, rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays. My employer and I together pay my HMO, which shall remain nameless, 19.1% of my gross.

But that is just the premiums! Oh, no, it gets better...

Here are my copays:
Primary care - $30
Specialty care - $50
Urgent care - $60
Emergency - $350
Hospital - 20% co-insurance up to the 'out-of-pocket maximum' of $4,000. Each.

So, worst case scenario, I am out $28,000 with premiums and the financially crippling 'co-insurance.'

But...wait...

That is not the worst case. It could get far worse. The new agreement between the HMO and my employer leaves them wiggle room on the out-of-pocket maximum - if I require something like a hip replacement, which their bean counters now say is 'elective surgery,' my 'coinsurance' can go up dramatically, leaving me in danger of bankruptcy.

WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY is there SO much resistance to Medicare for all Americans? A single payer plan paid for with tax dollars? Like what they have in Britain? Or Canada? Or Australia? Or pretty much any other advanced industrial democracy in the entire world?

Oh, because we would not be able to choose our doctor!
Well, I have to choose between a bunch of HMO in-system docs. I cannot go to anyone out of system without paying an arm and a leg. So that excuse does not cut it.

Oh, because we have to wait too long for basic surgeries!
My wife's left hand is useless because of arthritis, and after the rigamarole we had to go through to finally get her an appointment for surgery, we are looking at several months - more like a year. And in terms of a scar-tissue removal surgery to relieve chronic pain from her failed knee replacement, we are looking at never, because the doctor simply does not want to do such a surgery. So that is a myth.

Oh, we do not want the Federal Government running our healthcare!
Oh, ok. So we would rather have a public sector CEO who makes $17.2 million with around $11 million of that tied to shareholder profits running our healthcare? Our care dictated by a for-profit insurance company whose interest in maximizing shareholder profits is in direct conflict with our best interests as patients? Maybe with some nice MBA bean counters working with nurses to deny care? That is what we have now.

I want better healthcare. We should not even have to worry about going to the doctor. We should just be able to go in, get the treatment we need, and be done. The profit motive needs to be removed from healthcare because it is a public good.

A colleague of mine was in Australia at one time in his student days. He broke his ankle. His friends took him in to the hospital and asked how much it was going to cost. Nothing.

After treatment, as they were leaving, they were asked to visit the cashier. Oh, no, my colleague thought. Here's the fine print...

So he gets up to the window and they GIVE him $40 to pay for a cab. Seriously.

Please tell me why we Americans do not deserve this kind of healthcare here at home.

18 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Time expired
	I want Congress to raise taxes and pass Medicare for all Americans
	5 (28%)
	I want a public option, and age-eligibility for Medicare reduced to 55 years old with the commensurate tax increase
	13 (72%)
	I would rather have Congress strengthen the Affordable Care Act
	0 (0%)
	I am content with our present healthcare system as-is
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[leftieNanner]

1. The Public Option seems best to me

Allow anyone (not just 55 plus) to enroll in Medicare. People with insurance through work can keep it. Over time, I think we would end up with Medicare for All entirely. I'm on Medicare and I pay monthly premiums (deduction from Social Security) plus a drug plan and a supplemental plan.

Just MHO.

[marble falls]

5. That's works.

[Hoyt]

10. Agree. Most would gravitate toward it, and it would not have to be forced

on those who don’t want it (or think they don’t). There are still a lot of Democrats opposed the mandated MFA.

I do think we’ll find a PO, or even MFA, is not a cheap as some think it will be. But, it’ll still be better than leaving people in- or under-insured.

[leftieNanner]

16. It might help to stabilize Medicare too

More younger people signing up and paying premiums with healthier bodies than us old fogies - fewer medical claims to pay. Plus the overhead for Medicare is peanuts compared to the for-profit insurance companies. And those folks who work for the insurance companies might get hired by Medicare if they lose their jobs because Medicare would need more claims people to handle the additional enrollees.

[Hoyt]

18. While younger folks have lower medical needs, they will no longer be

paying Medicare tax toward older folks. Plus, all the proposals and peoples’ expectations so far, are that there will be no copays, we’ll add dental, providers are going to happily accept Medicare rates, etc. There won’t really be any “savings.”

Again, it’s good for everyone to be insured, but it’s not going to stabilize anything because it will cost more. Even Elizabeth Warren had to admit it’s going to cost at least 60% more than we are spending now for employer, private, and government healthcare coverage.. We’ll just have to deal with that, though.

[leftieNanner]

19. Interesting

Thanks for the information.

[moonscape]

2. I love Medicare, and since I have

Original not Advantage, I can choose my docs. I pay about 350/month including Medigap, and everything is covered.

I got cancer the month of my 65th birthday and it has been an adventure since then. Several surgeries, specialized scans, monthly bloodwork, bi-monthly chemo for years and more. Have not had a single expense beyond premiums and have had the best care at a teaching hosp and specialists of my choice.

Everyone should have access to this care.

[Ohiogal]

3. On my Marketplace Bronze plan

Last year

Co pay to see my PCP was $60
Co pay to see a specialist was $120!!

They lowered it a little this year

Now my co pay to see my PCP is $40
And co pay to see a specialist is $80

My monthly premium is $261

Without a subsidy this plan costs $700 a month.

[marble falls]

4. Improvement is coming. He's only been in office 45 days or so.

[mvd]

6. I am with you fully

It looks like we may have to take steps to get there, so I am not opposed to a public option. But I am for Medicare For All or at least a single payer system all the way.

[RicROC]

7. Medical Tourism reimbursement

If we cannot have a great medical access plan like the rest of the enlightened countries, then the US should reimburse those US citizens who have major surgeries performed in other countries.

For example, if a hip replacement would cost someone in the US out of pocket, $20,000, but s/he can have it done in France for $6,000, then the patient saves $$ and the US medical system saves $$. Unfortunately, the US insurance companies lose...boo-hoo. On the other hand, in 'sacred' free market system this should lower the cost of medical care in the US.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. I'm on Medicare with an Advantage Plan.

I had a heart attack last year, got a stent put in and three days in the hospital. The itemized bill came to some $80,000. I paid $885.00. Oh, and three months of prescriptions as I left was $160.00.

My Advantage Plan doesn't cost me anything extra, and so far it's been very good to me.

[NurseJackie]

9. I think we should do what's possible with the "majority" that we currently have.

A couple of those options would be a complete waste of time. Although nice and desirable... it's never going to happen until we get at least 60 Democrats in the Senate. (Or at least 55, with the temperature and hostility turned down.)

So, we should be realistic and do what's possible.

[DTomlinson]

15. I think abolishing or at least, curtailing the filibuster is necessary. 60 votes is ridiculous.

I was under the impression that in a representative democracy, whoever has the majority governs - and if people don't like what the majority has passed, they can vote them out.

But if the majority can't pass hardly anything to begin with because they need a super-majority (60 votes, in this case), well, how can voters possibly judge the majority fairly? The majority can't defend their record, because there's no record to defend, owing to the 60 vote threshold...

[thinkingagain]

11. Not sure which one

Something like your friend had inAustralia.

I think everyone should have the same equally good insurance/ care.
They should never have to worry when they go to the doctor regardless of the diagnosis what the cost will be.
Because good healthcare is a necessity not a choice.
I also believe that includeds vision and dentist care.

If that means paying a bit more in taxes fine but not so much that we low to middle income people are hurt by the tax.

But I think it would have to be phased I. Slowly because of the resistance of stupid people.

One problem I see with Medicare is the supplements great for those that can afford them not so much for those that can’t.
Also I see that they often are priced by an area so larger cities free small rural areas they cost.
So why can’t Medicare / supplements just be free for all.
As in healthcare for all the equal regardless of race, gender, age, income, health,
I would say we would have to hammer out some elective surgiers hip replacements are not elective for most people.

I say go to all those countries that have healthcare for all ask what works what doesn’t and put together a great plan.

[regnaD kciN]

12. While I understand the point of the poll...

...it's inevitably misleading, because it doesn't ask the basic question "Do you think our current healthcare system needs to be improved or not?" Instead, it becomes a contest between three different ways to improve it (most notably, between M4A and a public option)...and, thus, an argument between the wing of Democrats who think only M4A will suffice, and those that resolutely don't want M4A and think a public option is the best we can hope for. Therefore, it becomes our own small, uh, opportunity for a progressives-versus-moderates "Dems in disarray" scenario, when I doubt any of us could describe how one or the other would truly affect each of us.

Let's face it: I suspect most of us would describe the ideal healthcare system as something similar to the Australian scenario in the OP. But even that is somewhat misleading, because it describes a visitor to the country who is able to benefit from their system without paying the taxes needed to support it. Ideally, we'd all love a system where everything is fully covered, you can see any doctor or opt for any reasonable procedure you want, and you never have to pay a dime for it, even in higher taxes. But, obviously, that's impossible -- not even the most progressive or even socialist country has a system like that without having to pay for it in one way or another. It's in all our interests to determine which plan can provide the best balance between coverage and costs (which, it can be safely said, the current big-business, private-profit-driven system we have here isn't), and ignore labels and titles that really don't tell you much about the real-world effects of such a plan.

[leftstreet]

20. +1

excellent points

[keithbvadu2]

13. But Trump promised better, cheaper healthcare coverage for all.

But Trump promised better, cheaper healthcare coverage for all.

Many times.

Often in two weeks.

[DTomlinson]

14. Medicare for All. nt

[Ron Green]

17. One risk pool is a health care system.

Multiple risk pools is an investment scheme. We have enough investment schemes in this country; we need a health care system.

[brooklynite]

21. Nobody here is claiming we DON'T need better health care...

…the issue is that we can’t achieve better health care until you can elect 60 Democrats of a progressive bent to vote for it.