Single payer... some solution

[Openmind]

To be eligible for Medicare, you have to be 65 or older. It's not means tested, only age tested. Medicare is not free, but it is highly subsidized and so a lot cheaper than private insurance. It is paid for by a payroll tax that is supposed to only be used for that purpose, but, like most taxes, goes into the general fund.
IMO, the insurance lobby allows the government to continue Medicare as the industry doesn't want to insure seniors anyway. They would fight tooth and nail... no, make that they do fight tooth and nail against any sort of Medicare for all idea. That's the real reason we haven't joined the rest of the civilized world with a universal health care system.

You are correct, although some people are eligible for medicare prior the age of 65. . .if they are disabled before the age of 3 (i.e, the population of developmentally disabled people I worked with) and at least one of their parent has been paying into social security.

 

[PLC1]

You are correct, although some people are eligible for medicare prior the age of 65. . .if they are disabled before the age of 3 (i.e, the population of developmentally disabled people I worked with) and at least one of their parent has been paying into social security.

I didn't know that. I thought it was Medicaid that provided care to the disabled. Good to know.

 

[Openmind]

I didn't know that. I thought it was Medicaid that provided care to the disabled. Good to know.

Medicaid (Medical in California) takes care of people with disabilities who do not have access to medicare through their parents. Basically, Medicare is tied with Social security benefits. So, if the parents of a child are or have been paying into social security, their child (when he turns 18) has the right to receive SSDI (Social security disability insurance) based on their parent's SSA. Prior to reaching the age of 18, the PARENTS who are in charge of that child received the SSDI for the child. With it comes medicare (if the disability lasts longer than 24 months).

Medicaid is provided for people who are either below a minimum income and/or for people with disability who are not eligible for SSDI thus do not get medicare. In that case, disabled people do not get SSDI, but SSI and medicaid

Often, Medicare and medicaid work together to provide more substantial reimbursement for people who are "in the middle" in terms of income.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

First it's 124b x 2 and no idea.
What would be the reaction if you tell people their taxes would double or triple so they could have single payer? Well maybe 2 or 3x is low, not every californian pays taxes.
And that doesn't count medicare or medicaid since the feds control that.

Do you ever read the articles you comment on?


California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

It remains a long-shot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.

 

[PLC1]

Do you ever read the articles you comment on?


California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

It remains a long-shot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.

I wonder why the estimate is so much higher than that 9,450 per person average cost for the US? Are Californians that unhealthy?

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't know that. I thought it was Medicaid that provided care to the disabled. Good to know.

You would be surprised what it pays.

 

[dogtowner]

I wonder why the estimate is so much higher than that 9,450 per person average cost for the US? Are Californians that unhealthy?

Because it doesn't work.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I wonder why the estimate is so much higher than that 9,450 per person average cost for the US? Are Californians that unhealthy?

In reading the article it seems that the current expense is 400 billion, and that does not include the 100-150 Billion the employers spend. As to the health of the Californian, I think it has more to do with the greed of the medical community, the high cost of living, and the big pharma.

 

[PLC1]

In reading the article it seems that the current expense is 400 billion, and that does not include the 100-150 Billion the employers spend. As to the health of the Californian, I think it has more to do with the greed of the medical community, the high cost of living, and the big pharma.

That last one may be something that an individual state can't address. Can a state negotiate prices with pharmaceuticals the way Canada does? I'm not sure. What I do know is that pharma accounts for a significant portion of the out of control costs of for profit medicine.

 

[dogtowner]

That last one may be something that an individual state can't address. Can a state negotiate prices with pharmaceuticals the way Canada does? I'm not sure. What I do know is that pharma accounts for a significant portion of the out of control costs of for profit medicine.

Nope. Against the law now. That's why big pharma jumped on board with ocare.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

That last one may be something that an individual state can't address. Can a state negotiate prices with pharmaceuticals the way Canada does? I'm not sure. What I do know is that pharma accounts for a significant portion of the out of control costs of for profit medicine.

Contrary to the usual erroneous opinion of some, States already do negotiate prices. Medicare does, the VA does, Medical does, Oregon does, Massachusetts does and the list goes on.

http://khn.org/news/negotiating-drug-prices-should-state-agencies-band-together/

The federal government itself is banned from negotiating prices. It was the subsidies offered by GW Bush for insurance companies, and big pharma, that convinced the medical industry to support Medicare Part D

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...baldwin-federal-government-prohibited-negoti/

 

[PLC1]

Nope. Against the law now. That's why big pharma jumped on board with ocare.

I'm not sure just what they had to gain with Ocare. No one was allowed to negotiate prices with them before, no one in this country anyway.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not sure just what they had to gain with Ocare. No one was allowed to negotiate prices with them before, no one in this country anyway.

Legislative security

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Legislative security

Must have been for the Repugnant ones since it was they that first proposed it. However, when it was passed they acted like the cowardly children they are, and refused to go along with it. Kind of like what they are doing now with Trumpcare which is bound to fail for the same reasons Obamacare has not been as successful as it should have been.