DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

Bob Bryan Mar. 28, 2018

A new poll found 59% of Americans support a "national Medicare-for-all plan."

The plan is similar to a proposal made by Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Support for the idea is split along party lines, with only 36% of Republicans in favor.

The healthcare system supported by Bernie Sanders and many liberal-leaning Democrats has begun gaining steam with more Americans, according to a new poll.

The poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank, found that:

59% of respondents supported a Medicare-for-all healthcare system in which all Americans would get coverage through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid.

Moving to a public-option model, under which people could sign up for the Medicare-like program, would be even more popular.

About 75% of the public would favor a program framed as a public option for anyone who wants it.



There is, as expected, a partisan split in the polling on Medicare-for-all:

75% of Democrats support the idea along with 58% of independents.

But just 36% of Republicans are in favor of the idea.

But, when asked about the optional expanded Medicare program, or "Medicare-for-some," support among GOP voters jumped to 64%.

While the Medicare-for-all option is still a difficult sell for lawmakers, 16 Democrats signed on to Sanders' bill to implement such a program in the US back in September.

Additionally, many business leaders and politicians have been floating the idea for a single-payer system, which would see the government fund a vast majority of medical coverage.

Despite the findings, Kaiser said it is not conclusive whether the same percentage of people would support a concrete piece of legislation.

"It is unclear how support levels would fare once each of these proposals became part of the larger public debate on health care in this country," the organization's researchers wrote. "Prior Kaiser Family Foundation surveys have found the public's attitudes can be quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate."

In a 2017 Kaiser poll, for instance, people presented with arguments against a similar proposal became 13 percentage points to 21 percentage points less likely to support the idea depending on the argument. On the other hand, people presented with arguments for a Medicare-for-all types idea increased their support anywhere between 9 percentage points and 17 percentage points.

Given the current political landscape, and the GOP's historic distaste for government healthcare programs, it is unlikely any Medicare-for-all proposal could gain much traction anytime soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-medi...3?r=UK&IR=T

I gotta say this, Medicare gets a really bad rap. I mean I'm on Medicare. I also pay a premium to be on it each month. In addition I bought a Supp plan to cover what Medicare doesn't cover. It's really inexpensive. I think my total for just me is $304 per month. Can't beat it.

But if you are younger than me and need insurance, you shouldn't be able to get it as cheaply as I get it. I'd think you would need to pay more. Not sure how much more.

But more.

I love Medicare and Medical Mutual as my Supp. Amazing plan, perhaps better than any insurance I've ever bought on the open market.

Since they can't do the common sense thing and regulate this industry, I guess we get Medicare For All.

My wife, whom I have been with for a little over two years, and married for a year was a pretty die hard Republican before we met and was dead set against national health care , or one payer system.

She is finishing up nursing school so she has been working in the health care field doing internships and clinicals and such. After being educated in the medical field she has done a complete 180 degree turn and is totally for a national health care/one payer system. She sees how broken our system is.

I’ve been a nurse for 21 years. Watching our healthcare system financially run people over. Watching as families tap out any life savings in their elderly loved one’s accounts then having to turn to the government (Medicaid) anyway. Most assisted living facilities are merely ‘inheritance extraction’ facilities. Multi millionaire owners draining people’s life savings in return for substandard care. It’s criminal and it needs to change.

May I ask why?

There's no reason a 4 year old who needs a transplant couldn't have similar premiums. It's something or country could easily pay for simply by buying up fewer needless arms.

As I say every time the issue comes up- this is moral, not political.

i was curious to Damans thought process on this also. Why would younnger people, who tend to use medical less, pay more?

I personally think employers should still pay the brunt of health insurance costs.

With single payer, the tax rate needed to pay for it will still ruin everyone financially. Instead of just finding a different way to pay for it, we need to look at how to bring the cost down.

We should see how other systems work world-wide before assuming Medicare for all, or anything of the sort. Some systems (NIH in UK) have cost problems that make it unattractive to me, while other systems are better performing.

The system I like the most that I believe truly could work in the USA is the French system. In France you get base coverage only. You won't go broke because of a broken hip and no job, for instance. But your employer can offer upgraded insurance that lets you get say a better hip option versus the base one provided by the state. A better example could be fillings: state won't pay for cosmetic fillings but private plans in France often will.

This would retain our existing system without too much disruption, while providing a base floor for all. Medicaid is the best system to consider here for expansion. I believe we can provide a cost effective option in the USA. We just have to be realistic.

Cost is the reason. At some point if you have everyone paying what a retiree is paying, the system would go broke unless you raise taxes..

Somewhere in there is a compromise, find it.

You lower cost by regulating cost. South Korea does it and it works great.

Wasn't this the obama plan? Screw up health care enough and people will ask for single payer.

Let the cries for discrimination begin. There will be screaming that people shouldn't get better healthcare just because they have a job.

The ACA was sold to liberals as the first step toward universal health care. That was a bill of goods.

The ACA has it's good points but there was ZERO regulation of costs and maintaining the insurance middle man jacks premium prices by 30% from the jump. I was personally not excited at all about the ACA. But I also don't like being denied for pre-existing conditions, so for me going back is not a good option either.

Medicare for all must start with same premium for all....anything short of that will be deemed discrimination and a failure.

Currently we have a tax for Medicare of about 2.95 of income which is split evenly between worker and employer with some high income earners paying slightly more. It is currently predicted that Medicare will only be able to pay 1005 of part A bills through 2029. There are about 55 million people on Medicare and approximately 200 million people paying Medicare taxes to support a program that admits it cant paying all its bills in 2029.. Now you want to have a programs that has 330 million people being supported by 200 million? The current tax needs to double for the current set up. Then if you go Medicare for all the doubled rate would need to quadruple. That would be roughly 12% of you income to pay medicare tax...then another $125 your own premium a month then another $150 to $200 for a supplement plus another Rx premium.

One of the biggest reasons hospital charges are what they are is because the government reimbursement rates is pathetically low. This cause prices to go up for non government insured (medicare/Medicaid) users.... Once everyone is a Medicare user, hospitals and doctors wont be able to stay afloat on peanuts.

The ACA cost rises were 100% predictable....because of the pre-existing condition clause. The private market was always underwritten and was based on pre-phyiscialls and pre-existing conditions. That was why I could buy the exact same policy offered by my employer (with exception that mine was underwritten)for $90 a month while my employer plan that covered pre existing conditions cost $500 a month. Once ACA cam into effect the $90 plan could no longer be sold with pre-existing condition clauses and as a result it went up in the first year to $300 then to $500...the company no longer sells health insurance.

I am not against pre-existing conditionprotection...but it was the single reason premiums skyrocketed on the private market and in the exchanges. We just have to accept that what we want costs a crap ton of money.

+1

Similar situation with my wife and our household. We see people who don't go to the doctor because they can't afford to. And by the time they do, it's too late.

My wife has seen an older couple who had been married for 40+ years get divorced solely because then the wife would qualify for other better healthcare to treat her cancer.

We are a messed up nation who doesn't believe healthcare is a human right. I hope that changes.

And if my history is correct, we can blame Nixon for this.

How about we do what Canada does?

In a recent trip to Canada before the 2016 election, my wife and I had the opportunity to speak to a couple of older Canadian tourists. We made jokes about the Indians and the Blue Jays at the time, because it was relevant, and then my wife squeaked in, "Well I'd rather have your healthcare than our Indians."

To which the older gentleman said, "Yeah it is pretty good. We sometimes have to wait a bit, but it doesn't cost us a penny."

He went on to say that he needed a knee replacement, and had to wait about a year for it, but once he got it it did not cost him anything. He said that the way it works there is they have their normal Provincial tax, which is similar to our State or Local tax on purchases, and then on top of that they tax another 8% or something. Don't quote me on that number because my memory sucks. So on a $20 purchase, they'd pay an extra $1.60 in taxes. And this pays for their healthcare, and education systems.

Now I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but it works. And I'd be all for it. Yep that's right, I'd pay more for true National Healthcare.

And even with our own healthcare now, we have to wait for such things as knee replacements and whatnot. The insurance companies always want you to explore other options before surgery.

So if we're sick of insurance companies dictating what treatment we're allowed to have, we should really look to Canada's healthcare system. It's sustainable, whatever they're doing, they're doing it right.

Similar situation for my wife.....nurse on cardiac floor...tons of medicare patients...if they have a patient return to their floor for complications after a procedure then Medicare does not pay for the procedure even if it is due to patient non-compliance which is the case in over 80% of the denials...teach patient diet protocols, put them on lifting and activity restrictions...they ignore that and have to come back in then it is the hospitals fault for not teaching them properly...how is that anyones fault but the patient that has no financial incentive to follow directions and get better

I think this is really a case by case basis. There certainly can be cases where patients have complications after a procedure that are of no fault of their own. Things happen. Infections happen. And yeah, it can be their fault too. I don't think LeCharles Bentley asked for that staph infection. Just an example of things going wrong that weren't the patients fault. Sometimes the hospital is to blame. Sometimes the nurse or doctor made a mistake. Sometimes the nurse didn't give proper instructions.

We just had a baby boy 5 months ago and had the circumcision done. Your personal feelings on that aside, we were not given the correct care instructions for the wound. We were told to take the gauze off the evening we were discharged from the hospital. So that evening we did, and were told to put Vaseline on the wound and put fresh gauze on it. Not too complicated. The problem was that the doctor who performed the procedure used the sticky type of gauze that is meant to come off on it's own. So when we took the gauze off, we had a baaaaad time, and so did my baby boy. And this was all due to the wrong instructions given to us by the nurse. Boom!

Side note, my baby boy is all good and has perfectly healthy parts

My point (based on my wife's floor) is that non-compliance is the biggest reason people come back to her floor and medicare says if they come back within a certain time frame they wont pay regardless of the fault.

I sit and watch my mom (who is a nurse) go through a endoscopy to diagnose vomiting issues...revealed lots of ulcers from acid reflux...put her on nexium (or something similar). it worked for about a month...then she started having issues again....but we pried it out of her...she quit taking Rx once she started feeling better....granted Medicare should not pay for her negligence...but the hospital should not eat the bill either.

On the same note, during this spell she aspirated some vomit and got pnemonia..she had to go on breathing treatments to get better....she only went to half of her treatments...and only got half better..would not use O2 as prescribed....and now is back with breathing complications.

Most of the industial countries out there are set up similar to this (not exactly but similar) and have been for years. Yes, they are taxed more.

What bothers me is this, we are the strongest (or were)in the world. Yet, we can't do what smaller, poor countries can do.

Seems odd to me

I'd gladly pay that tax. At least I know it'd be given back to the people.

Fairly certain this is completely false. So prove it. Your individual situation doesn't represent the market at large, or the way most companies give insurance to their employees. The majority of people with preexisting conditions were already covered by group insurance prior to the ACA. I don't think that had much bearing on the market at all.

The main group vulnerable to not being able to obtain insurance due to preexisting conditions would be the self employed, unemployed, and part time workers (assuming they don't get covered by Medicaid).

I like how they have him convinced that he doesn’t pay anything even when the next words out of his mouth are all the increases in taxes they pay. Couple that with the increase in employer taxes paid on your behalf to further convince you you are not paying (that 10% tax the employer pays on your behalf is 10% tgat can’t be used to give you a much deserved raise). I am not saying whose is better....just saying Canada ain’t free. These guys sound like people in my small town tgat say we have free trash pick up because they don’t pay a monthly bill....they just don’t see that their property tax bill is $200 more because of the trash pick up line item in the budget.

Canada, and basically every other country has price caps and regulations.

The USA refuses to do that because the Healthcare industry owns the politicians.

I bought my own policy on a private market. It was provided by the same company that my employer used. It had the exact same coverages and limits...the only thing different was the employer premium was based on guaranteed coverage...my private plan premium was based on me going through a physical and having them look at medical records....it was $90 vs $500....that was the year prior to the ACA....you can call me a liar all you want....my example was the truth....that insurance company would insure you with a condition...the premiums were $400-$500 a month...just like a guaranteed issue employer policy.

You can no longer by that policy anymore...the ACA made sure of that.

If you stayed in the same job or stayed with the same insurance group... yes pre-existing conditions were covered pre ACA. But once your company changed their coverage or group insurance or you changed jobs or were laid off. Tough luck. No preexisting conditions were coverd. Plus there was a cap to what insurance co's had to pay on preexisting conditions..So it was....Pay up. Go broke. And off to the poor farm with ya.

Before the ACA, New Jersey was one of just a handful of states that prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. Not sure of the others.

That's not true either. Companies change coverage every year because they have to negotiate new contracts. Every. Single. Year. They aren't going to offer insurance to their employees that denies preexisting conditions.

And please read what I said.

People who were vulnerable:
1) Self Employed
2) Unemployed
3) Part time workers.

And of those, only the ones that can't obtain Medicaid.

My point being: Prior to the ACA, the MAJORITY of people were able to obtain insurance through their employer regardless of their preexisting conditions. And it has zero bearing on the prices going up, because this is not new.

If you can't understand that, then read it again.

And self proclaimed libertarian on the board is in favor of price caps??? Better re-read the party platform.

Yes, I know. I don't follow the party line on that one.

Basically I give up on Healthcare and Education. Those two things are way out of control to the detriment of this country and need fixing.

The private market that makes up the exchanges now was designed to mirror employer provided coverage especially in regards to guaranteeed issue.....which once applied to the private market, drive premiums higher and higher.

Employers are not allowed to offer anything other than guaranteed issue policies. They only negotiated the copays,deductibles and network availability. The could never negotiate pre existing conditions if they wanted to.

Did you ever buy a private policy on your own like I did?

I completely disagree with that. You completely missed my point. Or ignored it.

I have lived both sides of the fence.

When I worked for the government and for private industry, I got insurance through my employer.

Now that I am self employed (with preexisting conditions) I buy individual insurance.

I was on Cobra for a while, when I quit my job.

I have been denied coverage in the past.

I deal with this crap every single year when I have to find a new policy.

Sorry but that's not true for every single company. And besides, many companies are bought out or change hands and keep many employees but have a diff ins carrier. They can do what ever they want.



I did but millions of people change jobs in America every year. You didn't acknowledge them at all. When they stared their new jobs, guess what? No preexisting conditions were covered.



Please prove it was a majority. Can you show numbers to back up your claim. I have my doubts because I've seen this first hand too many times before ACA

Sure, I'll prove it when you prove that employers of full time employees offer insurance that deny coverage to preexisting conditions with no other alternative.

I'll wait.

Yeah snark usually wins out here.

Companies could do what they wanted before AHC. If they couldn't dump people outright with preexisting conditions they found other ways. Like putting them in a high risk pools and such. And if that failed the company would simply lay you off. I know you want to believe companies wouldn't deny employees preexisting conditions but they did it all the time. I saw it first hand. So don't tell me it isn't true. I know it is. Only a handful of states had to comply legally to preexisting conditions before AHC.

Well getting treated for cancer there doesn't bankrupt a family. So umm, there.

I dont think you even understand how group insurance works, or is negotiated.

Because you're spewing a bunch of crap.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Insurers love denying coverage for pre-existing conditions for those that have started a new job, or lost a job, or whatever. And guess what is considered a pre-existing condition... mental illness. So insurance companies were screwing over so many people. My mother with MS just got dropped from my father's work insurance. They're no longer covering spouses. So my mom now has to find her own, because her part time employer doesn't offer any.

Please tell me the dates...my example of private market insurance was pre ACA...which I made clear...is your example pre ACA or post Aca...THE RULES FOR THE PRIVATE MARKET WERE TOTALLY DIFFRENT. Here is the issue....pre ACA I could get a policy for $90 a month that was subject to underwritting and PE rules...the ACA crowd wanted PE rules done away with while at the same time maintaining the $90 a month premium....once the PE rule went out the window the risk to insures went up and drove premiums to the heights they are now which mirror employer premiums.