[qoute Irene]
I'm happy for you, I love my U.S.Medicare and the Dr. 's I see over and over and have gotten to know me.[/quote]

My doctor knows me well. Why wouldn't she.

Duplicate?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2019 01:21AM by prince.

As the longevity of wealthy Americans increases relative to low-income Americans, they benefit more and more from Medicare and Social Security. A National Institutes of Health study found "a growing gap in projected lifetime benefits under programs such as Social Security and Medicare because higher earners are increasingly more likely to receive such benefits over longer periods of time relative to lower earners."

Who do you think runs Medicare? I suggest you read up. It is run by the government who does tell you which doctors you can see and which hospitals you can go to. Doctors currently can take Medicare patients or not.

Doctors are currently under no obligation to accept Medicare patients. If you are on Medicare you find a doctor who does accept Medicare. Not all hospitals accept Medicare - there is a list of in-network providers you can select from.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 08:31PM by lbtweety47.

Who do you think runs Medicare? I suggest you read up. It is run by the government who does tell you which doctors you can see and which hospitals you can go to.

.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 08:32PM by lbtweety47.

.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 08:32PM by lbtweety47.

Who do you think runs Medicare? I suggest you read up. It is run by the government who does tell you which doctors you can see and which hospitals you can go to. Doctors currently can take Medicare patients or not. As an example, The Mayo Clinic does not accept Medicare.

.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 08:31PM by lbtweety47.

You are correct; however, currently those doctors that set up offices or clinics can opt out of taking a Medicare patient and many do because of the reimbursement from the government is not enough to cover the costs

Hmmm...spammy link in signature line.

And, does that post look familiar?

@kimmiemae wrote:

Hmmm...spammy link in signature line.

Erosion of the safety net? Letting old and sick people die if their care gets expensive? That sounds more like what we have now.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 02:45PM by heartlandcanuck.

I am on Medicare and have been for about 15 years. I have never gotten such good care with my Dr doing lab work every three months (not once a year). My eye Dr. worked for U.C. L.A. before coming into AARP United Healthcare and is the best. Ins. had become so pricey, many great Doctors left their private practice to join Medicare. I found out about this on a AARP job, they own United Healthcare. I paid $400 a month before this, and did not get the personal care I get now. G__ help us if this changes or they get so many people, care won't be this good, you'll sit all day waiting. I like to say, the one good thing about aging is Medicare, no changes please. No one is letting "old" people die!!!!!!

My comment was about the confusing essay a few comments back.

This whole, waiting-in-line-all-day crap that people who are afraid of socialized medicine go on about is simply not true. There is a supply-and-demand things, like in the States, and sometimes there is a wait for a spcialist, like in the States. (I gave to book an annual exam with my OBGYN three to four months ahead, here in rural Iowa... )

That essay talked about "erosion," like they would start off with single-payer, and slowly cut services to people who are expensive to care for. At least that is what I got from it. The erosion could occur in a watered down "optional" single payer system because the younger and healthier (and therefore cheaper) people would be encouraged to get private insurance instead. If the public option only covered those who are more costly to care for it would become pretty cumbersome. You need everyone in to spread the costs around. That is how it works in countries that have single-payer insurance.

Using Medicare as a base, and covering younger and younger people until all are covered after four years is Bernie's plan. Medicare already exists, so why not use it and expand eligibility?

Ask those that are on Medicare now how much they "love" it...…….you will still have deductibles, there are procedures Medicare does and does NOT pay for, and not all doctors accept Medicare as the government pays about 1/4 of what they normally charge. You will find may doctors taking early retirement. You will also see more and more PA and NPs taking care of you and not full fledged doctors.

I have lived in a socialist country with government health care. It is ok at best. Those that could afford it bought "Private" insurance which allowed you to go to the best doctors and best private hospitals (not used by government covered individuals). Same thing will happen here. You want the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic, or any Children's Hospital? They are NOT included in Medicare - for those you need Private Insurance. So it boils down to how old you are and what type of care do you deserve?

@heartlandcanuck: It does sound generous and kind, when you say it like that-- you express that more and more people will become eligible.

You did not explain why any more persons should be made eligible-- which is to be cast into an unnecessary safety net. Will there be an unwanted side effect? How will able-bodied, motivated, active, self-insuring, and/or employer-insured persons feel about this downgrade? And, who will customize care and tailor each care plan for each individual? The larger and more cumbersome a provider becomes, the less flexible it is. It will not be able to adapt to each situation quickly enough (sometimes) to avoid doing harm and even to do some good for some people. Even the existing providers are not sufficient to cover all persons equally and totally. It is not difficult to study numbers and explanations and realize that when only one system is in place, the coverage will not be better than it is now, when multiple providers of insurance and care are operational.

I think it is a good idea to continue to poke and prod and palpitate this notion of government care. The next question for the patient is: why should more and more persons be cast into the government's care?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 04:13PM by Shop-et-al.

Where do you get your info.....read my above post, I'm living it and if you get into a good plan AARP, they own United Healthcare and Dr's have their degree's on the wall, at lest mine do. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a onion, but only those on it should speak. I am telling you, my eye Dr. is prolonging my sight,( fight with that), I have Glaucoma......never had anyone but my Dr. see me, so who knows what will happen if this changes, but it won't be good. Speaking to choice of Hospitals, I prefer my small innovative Hospital (where I've had surgery and the best care) over Cedars of Sinai, who has mishaps...one can't control that. There are also plans that allow you to go to a hospital of your choice when traveling, everything depends (at this time) on your plan. Things will change as they add "everyone". I am against Bernie's plan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 04:20PM by Irene_L.A..

I am a Vietnam veteran and spilled a lot of my blood and took a lot of my enemies lives. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist/Communist and I fought aginst this bullshit. He can rot in hell!

Wow.

1. Bernie is a **Democratic** socialist. He believes in democracy as much as anybody - which is very different than the communism against which you fought. Right wing propaganda intentionally conflates the two for political purposes.

2. We have many "socialist" policies in this country that the vast majority of the population supports: emergency services, welfare, public schools, etc. 99% of the folks in the U.S. fall somewhere on an anarchy to pure socialism continuum - including all members of the GOP. Very few folks, when pressed, truly believe that all "socialism" is evil.

3. I'll be voting in the GOP primary, so, no, I am not trying to put some happy spin on Bernie's political beliefs. I just prefer that we keep it accurate.

@Navydoc wrote:

I am a Vietnam veteran and spilled a lot of my blood and took a lot of my enemies lives. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist/Communist and I fought aginst this bullshit. He can rot in hell!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 07:14PM by MFJohnston.

One, two, three generations from now, what labels will there be? Whence Democratic Socialist? For how many generations has this label, or its concept, been in development? What is the next step away from the republic that some people might remember and toward socialism and communism? These changes do not happen overnight. Over time, they occur in education, culture, religion, families, cultures, etc. Navydoc might remember the necessary history and rightfully wonder about the direction of politics and the development of politicians. Will our own grandchildren and great-grandchildren be the leading Socialsts or Communists in this Republic aka The United States of America?

(I actually have nothing against any of the candidates themselves. They are tremendous people! They have accomplished much, they have great stamina, and they are smart. They have wonderful qualities, and I appreciate this.)

As election time approaches, I sense that some of them are too eager to change course too quickly. They would capsize the ship! Just as the notion of Democratic Socialist has evolved to this point in 2019, it will evolve into... what? in future years. Probably, it will evolve into scant then mild then moderate then full Socialism, which is a near cousin of Communism. Which of the current candidates are likely to evolve into politicians who closely resemble socialists and communists?

Since the late 19th/early 20th century. It is the same old, tired, broken crap- ideologues pushing an ideology that doesn't work. They were progressives, then liberals, then progressives again, now Democratic Socialists. There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist. They keep changing their labels when their ideas become too odious to the average American.

Sadly, they will never stop. More sadly, people who ought to know better buy into it.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

One, two, three generations from now, what labels will there be? Whence Democratic Socialist? For how many generations has this label, or its concept, been in development?

I would suggest that there is a pretty significant difference between ideologies that have democratic elections and those that don't....

@panama18 wrote:

Since the late 19th/early 20th century. It is the same old, tired, broken crap- ideologues pushing an ideology that doesn't work. They were progressives, then liberals, then progressives again, now Democratic Socialists. There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist. They keep changing their labels when their ideas become too odious to the average American.

Sadly, they will never stop. More sadly, people who ought to know better buy into it.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

One, two, three generations from now, what labels will there be? Whence Democratic Socialist? For how many generations has this label, or its concept, been in development?

No doubt. But what's that got to do with the conversation?

@MFJohnston wrote:

I would suggest that there is a pretty significant difference between ideologies that have democratic elections and those that don't....

@panama18 wrote:

Since the late 19th/early 20th century. It is the same old, tired, broken crap- ideologues pushing an ideology that doesn't work. They were progressives, then liberals, then progressives again, now Democratic Socialists. There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist. They keep changing their labels when their ideas become too odious to the average American.

Sadly, they will never stop. More sadly, people who ought to know better buy into it.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

One, two, three generations from now, what labels will there be? Whence Democratic Socialist? For how many generations has this label, or its concept, been in development?

Uh....... Bernie Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. They believe in democratic elections. "Socialist" is being used in this string to refer to nations such as the former Soviet Union, China and Venezuela. These are nations that do not have actual democratic elections. (They feign such elections.)

YOU stated in your previous post: "There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist." This is false.

@panama18 wrote:

No doubt. But what's that got to do with the conversation?

@MFJohnston wrote:

I would suggest that there is a pretty significant difference between ideologies that have democratic elections and those that don't....

@panama18 wrote:

Since the late 19th/early 20th century. It is the same old, tired, broken crap- ideologues pushing an ideology that doesn't work. They were progressives, then liberals, then progressives again, now Democratic Socialists. There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist. They keep changing their labels when their ideas become too odious to the average American.

Sadly, they will never stop. More sadly, people who ought to know better buy into it.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

One, two, three generations from now, what labels will there be? Whence Democratic Socialist? For how many generations has this label, or its concept, been in development?

Democratic Socialist is simply the newest label used by the left. They need a new label and have been swapping them periodically for more than a century. Neither you nor Bernie Sanders nor anybody else can define "Democratic Socialist". A socialist is a socialist, Democratic or otherwise, whether they believe in elections or not. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of socialists right here in the U.S. They believe in elections. So what? Bernie Sanders and all who think like him threaten the country despite the fact that they believe in elections.

There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist. They are all misguided.

@MFJohnston wrote:

Uh....... Bernie Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. They believe in democratic elections. "Socialist" is being used in this string to refer to nations such as the former Soviet Union, China and Venezuela. These are nations that do not have actual democratic elections. (They feign such elections.)

YOU stated in your previous post: "There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist." This is false.

@panama18 wrote:

No doubt. But what's that got to do with the conversation?

@MFJohnston wrote:

I would suggest that there is a pretty significant difference between ideologies that have democratic elections and those that don't....

@panama18 wrote:

Since the late 19th/early 20th century. It is the same old, tired, broken crap- ideologues pushing an ideology that doesn't work. They were progressives, then liberals, then progressives again, now Democratic Socialists. There is no difference between a Democratic Socialist and a socialist. They keep changing their labels when their ideas become too odious to the average American.

Sadly, they will never stop. More sadly, people who ought to know better buy into it.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

One, two, three generations from now, what labels will there be? Whence Democratic Socialist? For how many generations has this label, or its concept, been in development?

There are going to be many more Democrats running for office, I am doing research to see who I feel best for the job and the Democratic party...a few good ones.... Finding a young Dianne Feinstein would be my choice, and there may be one, problem being, is country ready for a woman, I know i am.
...

Logically, expect worse.