Posted on 02/27/2019 6:47:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Is rabidly far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Washington) trying to become the Ilhan Omar of the health care industry?
Sure looks like it, given her new Medicare-for-All proposal to be unveiled in the House as a new bill today. The "Medicare for All Act of 2019," put out by Jayapal, is so left-wing even the left-leaning Axios says it makes Bernie Sanders look like a piker. Here's how bad it is:
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders can get outflanked in the race to define Medicare for All as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) is set to introduce a bill today that would go even further than Sanders' sweeping proposal.
Why it matters: Even as moderates and more conventional liberals are freaking out over the politics of such a dramatic upheaval, the left is still moving left, laying down ever-more-ambitious markers as they gain more and more influence over their party.
What we don’t know: The cost.
Axios also notes that the bill seeks to keep costs under control through a "global budget," meaning a cap on how much money hospitals and nursing care facilities can get, which is a fancy way of saying: rationing. They call that "interesting." The rest of us call it "Venezuela."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Medicare for All when y’all turn 65 is OK.
Medicare for All would be this mess without the middleman.
Private insurers wrote Obama care. I wonder if they are not living up to their kickback schedule.
“Infiltrate and gain control of big business.”Nominally private. Just like RINOs are nominally Republican and lie about being for the conservative Republican platform.
— Communist Goal #37
Eliminate private health insurance? Why?
Medicare now pays for 80% of expenses. There's still a major insurance industry involved in the supplemental other 20%. But, that's not the real issue. The question is, is Medicare adequately funded?
In other words, do the collected premiums cover the cost of the program?
The premium for Medicare (forget about the supplemental for a moment) varies according to your prior year's income from $99 to $399. Most people pay the lower amount, and I'm sure that doesn't cover the program's cost. So, if you extend Medicare to everyone, you have to answer to questions: 1) How much will you collect to cover it, and 2) will the program also cover the missing 20% of coverage?
If you're a Democrat, the answer is to throw everything onto the taxpayer. That's why it will be unaffordable.
Yes it’s crazier.
Putting a gun to people’s head to make them pay for a system which has no incentive to efficiency is BAD. Nation-wrecking, health-rationing, race-to-the-bottom BAD.
Yes, the current system has problems. It’s also keeping people alive because live patients pay. The problems are getting solutions because people pay for better solutions. Capitalism sorts things out (though may occasionally need a gov’t kick in the pants).
Single payer means single decider, with incentive to kill off expensive patients - even if they can pay for what they want.
I think it’s about time we cancel Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s H-1B visa!
Under "Medicare for All" you can decide to be a druggie from day one and never pay a penny into the system to collect. And your middleman will just be the government rather than an insurance company.
You must not be on Medicare yet. I am. It's anything but 'OK'. For starters, even though I paid for it over the last 50, or so years, I still have to pay an additional $4,000 per year for all the things it misses.
For this, it pays the hospitals and doctors only a tiny fraction of their actual costs. Here are two examples:
1) I needed to have a detached retina reattached. For this I had to go to a specialist with many years of training, in addition to an MD degree. She had to use millions of dollars of special optical and laser equipment in her office. The procedure took nearly two hours. The bill was over $3,000. For this, Medicare paid less than $100, which, by law, was payment in full.
2) I needed a "Fusion Biopsy" for prostate cancer. It required an MRI and then special prostate ultrasound biopsy equipment to target regions on the MRI with the biopsy needle. Again, multi millions of dollars of equipment was required. The Medicare payment? - less than $200, even though the bill was $3,500.
For all this, my doctor of the past 35 years won't see me any more. He gets paid $85 for a visit that previously paid thousands. I don't blame him.
It isn’t Medicare for All, it’s Medicaid for All. Medicare includes private insurance plans, and one may also purchase supplemental insurance.
“high priced poisons”
While you die of tuberculosis or typhus, I’ll take high-priced poisons.
Every time I see her name I think “PayPal”.
Don’t underestimate how many would go to the polls to vote to have their long-term care covered.
Republicans are about to reap the whirlwind for ceding the high ground on fiscal discipline.
People now think they’ve been crying wolf on the debt, and there’s a bunch of FREE SH** out there they want.
Most Indian women I’ve met aren’t nearly that homely.
I should have been clearer. No medicare for all before age 65.
No, it's less crazy. A LOT less, actually, which is why it will carry the WH and the Senate in 2020 unless Trump hires some experts to design an acceptable system.
The GOP in Congress is bought and paid for by the hospitals-"insurance"-Pharma iron triangle which controls and operates what we have now for their own benefit.
No solution which does not take these players off the board can work.
Hospitals (especially) are ideal for "public utility" status. Nobody complains (much) about water, natural gas, or electricity provision, the hospitals can be operated under much teh same type of regulatory regime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.