>
Skip to main content

Voice Your Opinion On Our Poll Questions

Week of July 1, 2019

Week of July 1, 2019
Posted: Jul 2, 2019
Categories: Poll Questions
Comments: 6

Topic: 'Medicare for All' that Eliminates Private Insurance but Allows Patients to Keep Healthcare Providers

Share your comments on this topic in the comments section below:

Do you support a "Medicare for all" system that eliminates private insurance but allows you to keep your doctor and other health care providers?

Vote in the poll: www.nfrw.org.

 

Print
Tags:

6 comments on article "Week of July 1, 2019"

Avatar image

Barbara Ellman, 7/4/2019 2:33 PM

Creating a one-payor system might allow you to keep your physicians, but will surely substantially lower payments to all physicians. I cannot imagine that many physicians would continue to practice in this type of system. As the widow of a physician, I can see them retiring early or pursuing other endeavors, thus, worsening the physician shortages that currently exisr, and making it more difficult for patients to get care.


Avatar image

Isabel Hogue, 7/4/2019 2:38 PM

It really would be MEDICAID for all.

And you would not be able to keep your own doctor.

We have heard that bait-and-switch lie before.

Medicaid is means tested (i.e., your level of eligibility is determined by your income and assets). So, I predict, as with Obamacare, the un-subsidized working people will bear the highest costs.

Also, in both Medicare and Medicaid, you can see only participating providers.

By the way, did you know it is a violation for a Medicare-participating provider to accept self-payment from a Medicare beneficiary? Self-pay means paying cash for services without running the claim through the Medicare system. A provider who is caught accepting self-pay from a Medicare beneficiary will be kicked out of the system.

This restriction will significantly limit your options as a patient. If the system allows only one test or treatment, for example, then that's all you get.

To me "you can keep your doctor" is meaningful only as long as he/she does not participate in the new "for-all" system, and you have the cash to pay for services.

Of course, it will always be an option for those members of the privileged, congressional class who have no intention of being subject to Medicaid-for-all.


Avatar image

Leslie Key, 7/4/2019 6:05 PM

No, I do not support Medicare for All. And I agree with Isabell Hogue that we would NOT be able to keep our doctors.

Those interested in how financially difficult it is to have a single-payer healthcare system should read the Washington Post’s article “How Vermont’s Single-Payer Effort Failed- and What Democrats Can Learn From It.” Democrats in the small state of Vermont tried and failed to get single-payer to work, and couldn’t do it without bankrupting the State of Vermont. So they had to give up the plan.

Remember that Vermont is Socialist Bernie Sanders own state. Now Sanders wants to push the same Single-payer healthcare disaster on America with his ridiculous “Medicare for All” plan. Sanders and many of the other Democrats running for President lie to us and tell us it’s affordable. In reality, Medicare for All would bankrupt America to the tune of $31 Trillion dollars.

Ever notice how Bernie Sanders NEVER mentions the disastrous single payer Democrat healthcare effort in his own state of Vermont? He doesn’t want informed American voters to know about it.

170 million Americans now have private healthcare insurance that they like and want to keep. They are not going to give that up for a financially disastrous “Medicare for All” plan, and seniors would lose the Medicare plan they now have and like. We all learned our lesson from the government-run Obamacare fiasco, where we couldn’t keep our own doctors, where we had FAR fewer healthcare choices in our states, and where insurance premiums skyrocketed. We are not going to fall for this again.

Democrats always run to inefficient, expensive, poorly managed government-run healthcare plans. They have no interest or creative imagination to come up with affordable private sector-options or alternatives for our country’s healthcare. They think big government is the answer to all our problems. It certainly is not.


Avatar image

Joy Crouch, 7/4/2019 7:19 PM

I have lived for 4 to 7 years in two different European countries. I have experienced single payer systems first hand. You will not be able to keep your doctor, instead, you will be seen by whatever doctor happens to be on duty at the time of your appointment. You will also experience long wait times. People show up for any and every excuse to see the doctor; i.e., a hang nail. After all, its free! We must mobilize our members to fight this socialist idea. Margaret Thacker, former prime minister of England, recognized the problems with England Health care system; but, told some US policians that it was too late to undo their system..


Avatar image

Jan Burch, 7/5/2019 3:35 PM

I am strongly opposed to "Medicare for All" or any other single-payer system, especially when it outlaws private or employer-based insurance. If M4A were as good as it's hyped to be, it would not be necessary to make private insurance illegal.

With M4A, we would be deprived of a choice in doctors, and long waits would be the norm. The proposal calls for a 40% cut in pay for physicians. I know of no one who would give 100% effort while receiving only 60% of their prior rates.

Anything that is "free" is also overused, so patient load would increase at the same time that the number of physicians decreases, making long waits for treatment inevitable.

Meanwhile, nothing is free, including "free" healthcare. It is simply pre-paid whether you use it or not, and is a means to redistribute income.

On a more personal level, I would not have survived an illness a number of years ago if I had not changed doctors Therefore, I personally understand that a choice of physicians and a choice of treatment plans can literally be a matter of life vs death. Medicare4All would eliminate patient choices in both instances..

Leftists will admit, if pressed, that abortion is at the heart of free healthcare. Medicare4All would cover all abortions through all stages of pregnancy at taxpayer expense. It's a backdoor way to eliminate the Hyde Amendment which prohibits taxpayer funded abortions.

Government-paid healthcare also allows government to regulate all aspects of your personal life with the claim that such matters effect the government's finances. This gives the government the excuse it needs to control your intake of salt, sugar, and to regulate private behavior.


Avatar image

usawriters, 9/6/2019 5:43 AM

I do not really like the wording, because I think that in this respect a person can still get everything from work, which is also a healthy person. Do for yourself; such a framework is not necessary. And so I believe that there are features and I am glad that they have been singled out in this article. And so it is worth paying attention to the basic tips for writing a essay or orders this service through a service. In any case, the article was good and very informative.

Leave a comment

This form collects your name, email, IP address and content so that we can keep track of the comments placed on the website. For more info check our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use where you will get more info on where, how and why we store your data.
Add comment

Theme picker