Re: Massachusetts Universal Healthcare Program




"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:baGig.25818$1i1.17678@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:N9Eig.4318$lp.398@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j2Aig.1015501$xm3.560615@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tExig.11324$921.8310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yxLhg.22000$1i1.15084@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Anybody have any thoughts or opinions on this? Put forth by a
republican
governor and backed by a democratic senate. Includes coverage for
all
as
well as mandatory health insurance for those previously able to
afford
it
but choosing not to (as many of you know, something I've been
advocating
for
years). This could be the model of the future.



Medicare for All Ages would be easier and more comprehensive. A new
study
group has found that the vast majority of Americans support universal
health
care, according to the ABC web pages anyway. They care collecting
more
opinions online right now.

How is medicare for all ages an improvement over the new MA system?
The
MA
system covers all citizens, requires all those who can pay to pay for
some
degree of insurance on a sliding scale basis, and incorporates private
and
government funding. Seems like an excellent system while medicare is a
horrible one.



Medicare puts constraints on physician income and other costs. With 30%
or
so of normal medical insurance going to overheads, I don't see how that
extra 30% is affordable for the nation as a whole. In fact, the
uninsured
could all be covered by a single-payer system.

Do you really think Medicare is a better run program than a private
insurance company... or do you think they report "overhead" differently?
Let me save you the time, it's the latter.

You haven't answered the question, however. How is the MA system
inferior?
Why should that model - if successful - not be used as a national
template?



Sure I did. Adding 30% to all bills for a group of clerks saying NO simply
means that we are wasting that much money. And NO, Medicare does not have
the same high overheads. Take that up with the CBO.


.