how is Medicare for all going to work if everyone who has Medicare...

[grasswire]

....has to purchase a supplemental insurance policy to cover expenses??

Medicare for all only is an improvement if it covers nearly everything.

Right?

[Justitia]

1. the current supplementals are really not too bad. And they are optional.

They cover stuff like upgrading a hospital room from semi-private to private, the 20% co-pays, etc.

And the premiums for the supplemental are not unreasonable.

I mean, if it was me, I'd just charge more for traditional Medicare and cover that stuff, but it's not too bad.

[grasswire]

4. the medigap supplementals are good....

..the advantage supplementals are a scam, and my cousin pays $183 per month for her medigap supplemental on top of paying for medicare.

How are the 50 million uninsured supposed to pay nearly $300 per month for Medicare for all plus supplemental?

[DaLittle Kitty]

16. You Don't Care For CANCER Patients Do YOU?

Then you'd know if you did just how these plans screw the middle class that buys this crap!

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. I'm in the process of finding out how Medicare works

I know I'll be buying supplemental, that's for certain.

[Lugnut]

8. You need to have supplemental coverage.

Medicare has deductables that the supplements cover. My husband and I chose an Advantage plan because it offered basic dental and eyeglass coverage. My only complaint about the plan we have is the meager participating provider list and tiered drug coverage.

[eridani]

3. Yes. HR 676 addresses that

Current proposals to allow anyone to buy into Medicare would require a supplemental policy. I got one for my husband for $100/month, which is more expensive than average, but it includes dental. If I could have what my husband has, I'd be a happy camper indeed. HR 676 would be even better than that, though.

[spartan61]

5. My husband has a supplemental policy

that is $139 per month. This pays everything that Medicare doesn't pay plus dental, vision and hearing, and Rx. It has been well worth the cost. When he was in the hospital twice last summer, once for back surgery and then knee replacement, we didn't spend one penny out of pocket.

[grasswire]

6. who is the carrier?

And is it a group policy?

[spartan61]

11. The carrier is Stirling and Stirling.

It is a group policy through the CT State Teachers Retirement Board. They don't pay anything toward the premiums, but we do have a large pool of people and there is a choice of plans. My husband has the coverage that includes it all but there is a lower cost plan that is $99 for health ins and Rx only.

[grasswire]

13. yeah, that's what I thought

people who have to pay individually for plans don't get dental and vision and have to pay a lot more. People who belonged to a union get the best bargain of all.

[spartan61]

15. You are right!

That's why I am pro-union.

[FlaGranny]

10. We can't afford a supplemental

so we are on an Advantage plan. It's a pretty good one, with quite a few physicians to choose from. It also has covered all my husbands generic medications, plus a so-so dental plan, and so-so vision plan. I do worry that if either of us becomes really sick that we'll have trouble seeing the physicians we should see and getting all the care we should receive. One of the most worrisome parts of the insurance reform for me is that if the supplemental payments to the Medicare Advantage plans are discontinued, the money is certain to come out of the pockets of patients. The only reason these plans are much, much better than regular Medicare financially is that they are subsidized. The only real answer is single payer, but I doubt I'll live to see that. When we have to stop working, we'll have only Social Security benefits to live on and won't be able to afford much of anything out of pocket. We'll continue working as long as we can. My husband works full time at age 70 and I work part time at age 69. No retirement in sight for us until we drop dead or become disabled.

[spartan61]

12. In the USA, this is unconscionable!!!

[Honeycombe8]

7. Why? We're not getting Medicare for all. ????? nt

[Egnever]

9. for you maybe its only an improvement if it covers nearly everything.

For many it what it does cover could be the difference between life and death. Pretty big improvement to those people.

[endarkenment]

14. optional not required.

Yes of course we should improve medicare while we are extending it to everyone. And improvements had better actually be improvements, instead of plan D style corrupt giveaways to corporate interests.

And extending it would require a fairly hefty increase in payroll taxes.

[kenny blankenship]

17. Other countries keep costs low by keeping profit out of primary care insurance

and allowing supplemental insurance to be sold at a profit.
They get to the same result by different systems and philosophies, but they have this in common and all beat the crap out of our system.

Britain has state owned hospitals, and the govt is the only insurer in the primary market. That's the Soshulissst Medicine extreme. Switzerland has individual mandates to buy private insurance - but the mandatory insurance is NON-PROFIT. That's a completely different route, one that you might even be tempted to call "libertarian" if it weren't for the fact that the govt has actually intervened massively by banning profit to produce an affordable system. Canada and France are in the middle with the govt as the sole insurer either directly or through non-profit intermediaries, paying health care costs through taxes. Again, there is no profit taking middle man turning people away and driving up costs and denying care to patients for his own gain.

Medicare for all could be the way we finally do the same thing: squash the profit cancer out of the broadest part of the health care market. You can then have supplemental insurance for profit around that base and keep costs low.