Some questions for our leftist friends at JPP.

[Robo]

Medicare's been around since 1964, yet insurance costs didn't start spiking until the Bush the Dumber years. Why is that? Simple; Medicare Part-D.

Actually health insurance began going up almost immediately, slowly but surely as more folks dropped their private insurance and relied on Medicare. Under every administration since Kennedy/Johnson BIG insurance lobbyist rewrote the federal healthcare regulations to favor themselves and favor the politicians with large campaign contributions. Step by step they stuck it up America's ass and you voted for the swamp rats!

 

[Robo]

You fall back on ambiguous "Constitutional" arguments because you have an inherent bias against the institution of government that has been informed by 40 years of propaganda.

You're brainwashed.

Then friend you can refute and debunk my constitutional arguments, but never do, why's that?????

 

[Robo]

Wrong.

Completely fucking wrong.

Medicare was created in 1964 because private insurers were charging too much for seniors.

That's just your story, I lived through it all buddy, I know exactly what happened, I WAS THERE, where were you?????

 

[LV426]

Actually health insurance began going up almost immediately

Proof? You have data from 1964 that shows an increase in private insurance premiums greater than the increase pre-1964? I doubt that very much.

 

[LV426]

slowly but surely as more folks dropped their private insurance and relied on Medicare.

NO.

WRONG.

They didn't "drop" their private plans, they couldn't afford their private plans because they are old people and old people cost more to insure.

Do you know what the % was of seniors who had coverage prior to 1964? Care to venture a guess?

It wasn't 100%.

It wasn't even 80%.

It wasn't 70%.

It wasn't 60%.

It was 50%:

In all, slightly more than half of Americans 65 and older had health insurance at the end of 1962.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/20/was-early-1960s-golden-age-health-care/

Today, 100% of seniors have health insurance.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it shows.

 

[LV426]

Under every administration since Kennedy/Johnson BIG insurance lobbyist rewrote the federal healthcare regulations to favor themselves and favor the politicians with large campaign contributions.

So, this is fixed with two very easy steps:

1. Public campaign financing (which you oppose, right?)

2. Single payer that renders private insurance, and their lobbyists, moot.

There is no way the insurance lobby could be involved in single payer since single payer replaces private insurance.

So you argue that private insurance companies are corrupt on the one hand, then argue that they're the only ones who can do reimbursement on the other.

So your position is cognitive dissonance.

 

[LV426]

Then friend you can refute and debunk my constitutional arguments, but never do, why's that?????

I did just that when I talked about how your stupid 10th Amendment position is self-contradictory.

You haven't spoken to that because you know it's true.

You can't say you want insurance plans to be sold in every state while also saying states should be free to regulate their own insurance markets.

That is cognitive dissonance.

 

[LV426]

That's just your story, I lived through it all buddy, I know exactly what happened, I WAS THERE, where were you?????

Then you had your head up your ass this whole time because at the end of 1962, only half of all seniors had health insurance.

 

[LV426]

That's just your story, I lived through it all buddy, I know exactly what happened, I WAS THERE, where were you?????

Old age and senility have destroyed what little brain you had remaining.

As of the end of 1962, only about half of all seniors had health insurance coverage.

Today, 100% of seniors have health insurance coverage.

 

[RB 60]

So would you rather pay whatever you're paying in premiums, copays, deductibles, and drugs, or pay nothing (because you're retired, so you don't pay payroll taxes) and continue to get the same care you get now, perhaps even better care since you have more choices without having to first enroll with a middle man's insurance plan?

Like I said, you of all people should be pushing for single payer because it will save you whatever you're currently spending with your insurer.

Single payer will help people transition to retirement sooner, just as you did. That labor market elasticity is what we should be aiming for now that Millennials are the largest generation in the workforce, and Boomers are staying in the workforce specifically because of things like employer-provided care. If everyone is enrolled in single payer, then that means all those Boomers staying employed in jobs because of health care could retire and allow Gen X and the Millennials to move up the ladder in the workforce.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[LV426]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I only work with what you give me, and here's what you've given me:

1. You claimed you are retired, and you budgeted your health care costs out to carry you through to Medicare eligibility.
2. You don't say how much you're paying, but you've implied it's a significant amount.
3. Since you're retired, you're not drawing a paycheck, which means you're not paying payroll taxes.
4. If M4A was implemented tomorrow, it would be implemented with a payroll tax that you wouldn't pay because you're retired.
5. So...if M4A was implemented tomorrow, you wouldn't be paying anything for your health care coverage ever again.

Now is that better or worse than paying for your health care coverage now and eventually Medicare supplemental plans once you turn 65?

My other point was that the reason Boomers are staying in their jobs isn't because they love to work...it's because they need health care coverage. So if you had a single payer system, then those Boomers could leave the workforce and create room for Gen Xers and Millennials to advance in their careers. That's labor elasticity, and it's what we need since Millennials are the largest part of the workforce ever.

 

[Nordberg]

Both Medicare and Social security were created because the health and well being of seniors was terrible. Politicians had plenty of evidence that many seniors were suffering and living terrible lives. When it was created one of the emotional stories was about old people eating cat food because it was cheaper than tuna . But old people were suffering badly and we could do something about it. The quality of life for seniors has improved greatly since those days.
Many countries honor their seniors and see their life experiences and contributions as valuable. That is not the American way.

 

[PoliTalker]

One of the problems with the for-profit insurance industry is that the customers are forced to pay for efforts that have nothing at all to do with health care. These costs actually work against delivering health care. People are paid to deny health care. That's their job and we all pay for them in insurance premiums. It's mind-boggling, especially when it is considered that without such efforts, that money could have been spent delivering more health care, or refunded to payers of health care premiums as overpayments.

A Single Payer system would not have anybody paid to deny claims. Nobody would get a bonus for denying the most claims. The last thing we need to do is have people working against delivering effective health care, like we currently do.

 

[Nordberg]

One of the problems with the for-profit insurance industry is that the customers are forced to pay for efforts that have nothing at all to do with health care. These costs actually work against delivering health care. People are paid to deny health care. That's their job and we all pay for them in insurance premiums. It's mind-boggling, especially when it is considered that without such efforts, that money could have been spent delivering more health care, or refunded to payers of health care premiums as overpayments.

A Single Payer system would not have anybody paid to deny claims. Nobody would get a bonus for denying the most claims. The last thing we need to do is have people working against delivering effective health care, like we currently do.

Some doctors are paid big bucks to derive ways to justify denying healthcre to premium payers.http://www.patriotcompli.com/post/tricks-insurers-use-to-avoid-paying-claims Robo likes this kind of stuff.

 

[Robo]

Seems to work fine for Medicare, so yes.

Works "FINE" for Medicare? Medicare has ever expanding "out of pocket" co-pays. Some doctors refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid only folks have limited choices of doctors and hospitals and Medicare only covers less than 1/3rd of America's population, Medicare for all would make it better, how?

 

[Robo]

Both Medicare and Social security were created because the health and well being of seniors was terrible. Politicians had plenty of evidence that many seniors were suffering and living terrible lives. When it was created one of the emotional stories was about old people eating cat food because it was cheaper than tuna . But old people were suffering badly and we could do something about it. The quality of life for seniors has improved greatly since those days.
Many countries honor their seniors and see their life experiences and contributions as valuable. That is not the American way.

Actually America's seniors are among the most affluent people in the nation. America's seniors are a huge VOTING BLOCK that actually vote religiously. That was and still is the Democrats motivation for Senior Welfare scams. Democrats are professional at buying votes with other folks money. Socialist Insecurity was created right after the Great Depression when the recovery left many seniors behind because of their age. A fine idea for sure, but an unconstitutional idea. There's NO, ZERO, authority in the Constitution granting the feds any authority to create and fund welfare programs. Those actions are RESERVED TO THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE! If you believe a federal retirement program is a good idea and necessary, then promote and get a constitutional amendment to allow the feds such actions. Otherwise you'll only open the door to every drone to demand his/ her share of the loot, and that's exactly what y'all have done by letting the crooked vote buying politicians trash the Constitution!!!!!

 

[LV426]

Works "FINE" for Medicare? Medicare has ever expanding "out of pocket" co-pays

Right, which is why Medicare should be expanded.

Some doctors refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

Patient acceptance by type of insurance. The vast majority of non-pediatric primary care physicians (93 percent) say they accept Medicare—comparable to the share accepting private insurance (94 percent)
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/primary-care-physicians-accepting-medicare-a-snapshot/

Hmmm...93% vs. 94%.

So you are wrong. Again. Sensing a pattern here...

 

[LV426]

Medicare and Medicaid only folks have limited choices of doctors and hospitals and Medicare only covers less than 1/3rd of America's population, Medicare for all would make it better, how?

The vast majority of non-pediatric primary care physicians (93 percent) say they accept Medicare—comparable to the share accepting private insurance (94 percent) (Figure 1). A majority of primary care physicians also say they are also taking new Medicare patients (72 percent), but this share is somewhat lower than the share of primary care physicians accepting new privately insured patients (80 percent).
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/primary-care-physicians-accepting-medicare-a-snapshot/

Why is it that everything you say is fucking wrong?

 

[LV426]

Actually America's seniors are among the most affluent people in the nation.

No. They're not. You're just making shit up as you go.

Most seniors are on fixed income because less than half of those age 55+ have no retirement savings and have to rely on Social Security for their retirement.

After children, senior citizens are the next largest group of Medicaid recipients in the country.

Nothing you are saying is true. You're making it all up as you go.

 

[LV426]

One of the problems with the for-profit insurance industry is that the customers are forced to pay for efforts that have nothing at all to do with health care. These costs actually work against delivering health care. People are paid to deny health care. That's their job and we all pay for them in insurance premiums. It's mind-boggling, especially when it is considered that without such efforts, that money could have been spent delivering more health care, or refunded to payers of health care premiums as overpayments.

A Single Payer system would not have anybody paid to deny claims. Nobody would get a bonus for denying the most claims. The last thing we need to do is have people working against delivering effective health care, like we currently do.

All an insurance company does is administration.

It's not germane to health care delivery at all.

It's a part of the process that happens after your doctor treats you.