There's talk and hope in many quarters that the United States will end up with Medicare for all. How would this affect nursing?
I currently pay a lot for my portion of high deductible insurance through work. It's basically mainly useless to me since I'm healthy, don't take meds etc. Even going to the doctor would cost me.
Honestly, the middle class has become the new underserved in America. Frugal, responsible people think twice about going to the doctor because of huge copays that have made basic healthcare a budget buster.
How would Medicare for all affect the middle class, nursing in particular? Employers would no longer have to pay for insurance. Would they pass savings on to us in the form of higher wages? How would we fare economically with higher taxes? Would the poor government compensation to facilities drive down wages?
Bernie's proposed plan is not a Medicare-for-all plan, it's a built from scratch single payer plan, and it doesn't outright ban private plans, only those that would duplicate the basic coverage of the single payer plan, since otherwise a two-tiered system develops.
Under Medicare-for-all, private plans would still be common, BCBS for instance already sells more Medicare plans than private plans. You're still free to choose plans to meet your deductible, copay and OOP preferences.
But Bernie is currently the loudest and most strident voice and he is calling his plan Medicare for All. As the loudest voice he is getting the most media coverage. So much so that a number of the hoard of hopefuls are jumping on the band wagon. So the general public is seeing his plan as a true Medicare plan. Perception is reality. Many of the posters on this topic have actually said they are in favor of a single payer - ie government - system.
Leaving the liberties you're taking in quoting fiddleback aside, Liberty doesn't refer to the freedom to take advantage of others or abuse the system.
I'm not at all opposed to contributing to the coverage costs of those who truly can't afford it, but it can't be an option to not contribute to the costs of services that are legally required to be provided to you. Would it make sense let people 'opt-out' of contributing to the cost of police services even if police still had to respond when they called?
Our current system, which is funded by a perpetually shrinking portion of the population isn't sustainable in the long term. A sustained broad funding base is required, or we'll eventually end up with a healthcare system that would be unrecognizable by today's first world healthcare standards.
How is it different from slavery? It’s different because I still have a choice whether or not to continue working there or not. I guess I forgot to mention that I passed the “rule of eighty” a long time ago so even if they wanted to fire me or I became disabled I could take retirement and have the CHOICE to keep my current plan and have Medicare as my secondary insurance. Or not. Did no one here listen to Bernie when he said that under his plan employer provided coverage would no longer exist and BCBS and other health care insurance companies would only be there to cover elective procedures like nose jobs. So I still have options. Under the Bernie plan no one has a choice.
Sorry, I am not seeing "a choice whether or not to continue working there or not" in connection with your healthcare. Theinsurance you received is/has been interlinked with your employer and if you leave/or left them you lose it. This is a huge incentive to stay where you are (whether you want to or not). You stated it is worth over $12,000 to you, that is a lot to lose if you move.
I have no idea what this "rule of eighty" is.
In short it seems to me that because you are satisfied with what you have got you are not willing to look at the problems of other people and where and how they get their healthcare. Sadly very much a case of "I'm all right Jack." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm all right jack
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
19 hours ago, Fiddleback said:
How is it different from slavery? It’s different because I still have a choice whether or not to continue working there or not
And your employer is also free to change your benefits whether you like it or not. You may like your coverage now, but next open enrollment for insurance may be totally different.
Sorry, I am not seeing "a choice whether or not to continue working there or not" in connection with your healthcare. Theinsurance you received is/has been interlinked with your employer and if you leave/or left them you lose it. This is a huge incentive to stay where you are (whether you want to or not). You stated it is worth over $12,000 to you, that is a lot to lose if you move.
I have no idea what this "rule of eighty" is.
In short it seems to me that because you are satisfied with what you have got you are not willing to look at the problems of other people and where and how they get their healthcare. Sadly very much a case of "I'm all right Jack." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm all right jack
At no time have I said I am against a system that would provide DECENT health care to people who can’t afford insurance. What I am against is taking insurance plans that people are happy with and have worked for years to keep away from them and reducing their take home pay through new payroll taxes. Yes, I have stayed in the public sector and turned down other jobs that paid more because of benefits. If you want to call that “gold handcuffs” then so be it. I can retire at any time with a really good pension and health care. Can you say the same? I simply don’t see where it is right to take away something many people have worked for their entire lives.
By all means let’s find a way to get health care to those who need it. Just let those of us who are happy where we are keep what we have worked for.
And your employer is also free to change your benefits whether you like it or not. You may like your coverage now, but next open enrollment for insurance may be totally different.
Not without an act of the state legislature they can’t. And that’s not likely to happen in a state where nearly thirty percent of new hires quit within the first two years of employment because they don’t look at the long term. And if it does there will be enough of a lag between the changes being passed and actually taking effect that those of us who can will go ahead and retire under the current system.
I think this would be an overall good thing for nurses. Or at the very least, after an adjustment period we would feel little difference.
Seriously folks, all other first world countries have some measure of universal healthcare system and their citizens are all covered for less money than we waste to have poorer outcomes. Social Security was massively resisted when FDR first brought up the idea. Now we can't imagine American society without it and the thought of it going bankrupt has us in a panic.
And anyone who says, "I don't want to pay for anyone else's care who can afford to pay themselves"...you clearly don't know how insurance works. Even your sky-high premiums and deductible are not set aside in a special little insurance company safe with your name on it. It all goes into the massive pool that every other person who is insured by that company draws from for claims. Medicare for all will cut out the huge administrative waste that individual insurance companies pass on to us as the payers. Everyone pays for everyone else as before (and you get paid for too) except more efficient and losing your job won't affect your care. Not exactly rocket science.
At no time have I said I am against a system that would provide DECENT health care to people who can’t afford insurance. What I am against is taking insurance plans that people are happy with and have worked for years to keep away from them and reducing their take home pay through new payroll taxes. Yes, I have stayed in the public sector and turned down other jobs that paid more because of benefits. If you want to call that “gold handcuffs” then so be it. I can retire at any time with a really good pension and health care. Can you say the same? I simply don’t see where it is right to take away something many people have worked for their entire lives.
By all means let’s find a way to get health care to those who need it. Just let those of us who are happy where we are keep what we have worked for.
I'm not understanding how the health care benefits that you receive through the government (I understood you receive your healthcare through the government since you said you have stayed in the public sector because of the benefits) would be diminished/taken away by extending Medicare to all. What would you personally lose in terms of your own health care benefits, paycheck, or pension, if other people are able to benefit from Medicare for all? Or are you saying that you feel that you receive your very good health benefits from the government due to merit (having been employed by the government for a number of years) and that other people should not expect to enjoy the same level of health security as you if they have not secured a government job with good benefits and pension?
I'm not understanding how the health care benefits that you receive through the government (I understood you receive your healthcare through the government since you said you have stayed in the public sector because of the benefits) would be diminished/taken away by extending Medicare to all. What would you personally lose in terms of your own health care benefits or paycheck if other people are able to benefit from Medicare for all? Or are you saying that you feel that you receive your very good health benefits from the government due to merit (having been employed by the government for a number of years) and that other people should not expect to enjoy the same level of health security as you if they have not secured a government job with good benefits and pension?
Sounded to me a lot like, "I got mine, sucks to be you, but please don't raise my taxes"
Sounded to me a lot like, "I got mine, sucks to be you, but please don't raise my taxes"
17 minutes ago, morelostthanfound said:
Sounded to me a lot like, "I got mine, sucks to be you, but please don't raise my taxes"
I’m not opposed to Medicare for all - all who want or need it. What I am saying is there are people in this country who are happy with their benefits and we should not be forced give up what we have if we don’t want to. And even if I was allowed to keep my current plan, I don’t want to have higher taxes eat into my paycheck for something I wouldn’t be using so yes, I am selfish Not all of my years in the public sector have been in health care and the sacrifices I made at that time have made me cynical
Also, My first wife was covered under Medicare due to her being on dialysis. The first four months my insurance paid due to the four month waiting period. Everything went smoothly. From the day her Medicare kicked in till her death three years later, it was a constant battle with the system. Can’t use this doctor, have to change dialysis centers, have to do this, can’t do that.
I don’t want to be told what doctor I can use and I don’t want to be told what hospital I have to use. Any one who says that won’t happen has forgotten “ if you like your plan you can keep and you can keep your doctor.” I might add that if you think the government will do a better and more efficient job just look at the VA.
Fiddleback
28 Posts
But Bernie is currently the loudest and most strident voice and he is calling his plan Medicare for All. As the loudest voice he is getting the most media coverage. So much so that a number of the hoard of hopefuls are jumping on the band wagon. So the general public is seeing his plan as a true Medicare plan. Perception is reality. Many of the posters on this topic have actually said they are in favor of a single payer - ie government - system.