midgett said:

---

I've talked about these 2 things for years. This guy explains them in a clear and concise manner.

Liberals are too bent on a disastrous Medicare For All and most conservatives have a mishmash of ideas many of which are just more of the same.

Price transparency forces businesses (medical) to compete and offer quality product and service. HSAs put an incentive on the buyer (us) to be prudent with our healthcare dollars.

Most doctors would be happy to eliminate the costs and hassle of insurance paperwork and price haggling. The ones who deliver quality care would be able to charge a premium.

I've accumulated quite a bit in my HSA. For minor stuff we go to the Minute Clinic or similar. It's OUR money so we spend it like our money. I have enough to cover my maximum deductibles for the next 3 or 4 years.

Low income people could have the government fund their HSA and help purchase a catastrophic policy.

What would it take for Washington to use some common sense. If nothing else, try this before potentially driving off the cliff with Medicare for All.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-can-slash-health-care-costs-75-with-2-fundamental-changes-and-without-medicare-for-all-2019-08-15?siteid=rss&rss=1

---

Me, too. I suspect you don't take any meds (I don't). And I don't have a copay for annual physicals (thanks Obama). That allows an HSA to grow. (Along with the market growth, mine is invested).

3 weeks from $25 flu shot. (Prevention).

Quote:

---

I suspect you don't take any meds (I don't).

---

I am glad you don't. I am 70 years old. Two years ago I was taking zero meds. Now I take 5 a day. Appreciate your good health while you have it and take advantage of it while you can.

I have done everything "right".....good diet and exercise, non-smoker, non-drinker, doctor says I don't need to lose any weight (I can still fit in my Navy uniform from 45 years ago). There isn't (wasn't) anything I could do to lower my risk for disease. However, I have had prostate cancer (10 years ago), and have had to reduce my 2.5+ mile walk each morning to a few blocks because I get dizzy and unsure on my feet. Have appointments set up with my cardiologist and a neurologist in the next couple of weeks to try to determine the problem. I was lucky to get those appointments as quick as I could (and this was after having to go to the ER two weeks ago). I had to take a nurse practitioner cardiologist as my usual cardiologist is booked into October.

I have two points to make. The first is that you never know when your health will take a dive. Even doing everything you can, you really have little control over it. The second is that all the talk is about health insurance. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you will be able to use it when you need it. I would be happy to pay out of pocket to be able to see a doctor when the situation is really urgent. I can't even do that. They are booked. Going to the ER is a waste. They just take care of the immediate symptoms, send you home and tell you to follow up with a doctor (for which you will often have a long wait for an appt.). The problem in the future (and even today) is not so much health insurance, it is being able to find someone that can see you when you do have a need.....and it is only going to get worse.

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

I suspect you don't take any meds (I don't).

---

I am glad you don't. I am 70 years old. Two years ago I was taking zero meds. Now I take 5 a day. Appreciate your good health while you have it and take advantage of it while you can.

I have done everything "right".....good diet and exercise, non-smoker, non-drinker, doctor says I don't need to lose any weight (I can still fit in my Navy uniform from 45 years ago). There isn't (wasn't) anything I could do to lower my risk for disease. However, I have had prostate cancer (10 years ago), and have had to reduce my 2.5+ mile walk each morning to a few blocks because I get dizzy and unsure on my feet. Have appointments set up with my cardiologist and a neurologist in the next couple of weeks to try to determine the problem. I was lucky to get those appointments as quick as I could (and this was after having to go to the ER two weeks ago). I had to take a nurse practitioner cardiologist as my usual cardiologist is booked into October.

I have two points to make. The first is that you never know when your health will take a dive. Even doing everything you can, you really have little control over it. The second is that all the talk is about health insurance. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you will be able to use it when you need it. I would be happy to pay out of pocket to be able to see a doctor when the situation is really urgent. I can't even do that. They are booked. Going to the ER is a waste. They just take care of the immediate symptoms, send you home and tell you to follow up with a doctor (for which you will often have a long wait for an appt.). The problem in the future (and even today) is not so much health insurance, it is being able to find someone that can see you when you do have a need.....and it is only going to get worse.

---

I'm sure it can change. My point (that I didn't make eloquently) is prescriptions change the cost of health care.

I hope your doctors can get a proper diagnosis for you and get you to good health.

Take care.

• administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
• Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans' marketing costs and profits from their calculation of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare's overhead is dramatically lower.
• Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls, and building costs.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

cinque said:

---

• administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
• Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans' marketing costs and profits from their calculation of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare's overhead is dramatically lower.
• Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls, and building costs.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

---

You shouldn't reveal all your ignorance on this board. People will think that you are, well, ignorant and extremely racist.

What's the income of you guys?

Waco1947 said:

---

What's the income of you guys?

---

Why do you ask?

curtpenn said:

---

Don't pretend to be an expert on health care costs, Medicare, pharma prices, etc. That said, I will always naturally assume that ANYTHING government is involved in will be relatively less efficient and more costly than needed. I'm less than a year away from being eligible for Medicare, but I'm still working as is my wife (who is a few years younger and I'm on her health insurance), so this is close to being a reality for me. All that said, is there any data to suggest that Medicare costs would be as competitive with private insurance if Medicare was not actually subsidized by everyone else? I assume that health care providers inflate costs to other consumers to compensate for their lower level of compensation from Medicare. Is that a bad assumption? What say you, cinque?

Incentives would be have to be built in to save money. I heard an example : If you give a teenager a debit card with a $1,000 they will spend a $1,000 but an unlimited debit card invites disaster.
I would think that many tests and treatments would not be demanded by patients if there was a limit.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Incentives would be have to be built in to save money. I heard an example : If you give a teenager a debit card with a $1,000 they will spend a $1,000 but an unlimited debit card invites disaster.
I would think that many tests and treatments would not be demanded by patients if there was a limit.

---

---

Waco1947, first I commend you for understanding how important incentives are to creating the most affordable plan....

That's the whole point of the two initiatives: INCENTIVES. If the government funds your HSA but it is your money to keep if you don't use it all, you have an INCENTIVE to stay healthy (see tommie above), shop prices and avoid emergency rooms for minor stuff. The money you don't spend is yours to keep (for other health-related purposes).

Putting price tags on care provides INCENTIVES for the medical community to provide the same or better care than competitors and the same or better service, too. If all doctors have the same price for a broken arm and (in theory) all can set it the same way, how do they differentiate themselves? Quicker service, better follow up, additional services, etc. The same incentives most businesses who have competitors must offer to stay in business. If all the service is the same, then the next INCENTIVE is for a doctor to lower his price.

It reduces the input of insurance companies and the government. Both will still be needed but not for the large majority of healthcare.

Explain the incentives in Medicare for All (completely government run healthcare). Note: there are hardly any.

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actual reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actual reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

David would disagree. Read his thread about the elderly couple that had to kill themselves because Medicare would not cover their medical costs.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actual reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Waco1947 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Don't pretend to be an expert on health care costs, Medicare, pharma prices, etc. That said, I will always naturally assume that ANYTHING government is involved in will be relatively less efficient and more costly than needed. I'm less than a year away from being eligible for Medicare, but I'm still working as is my wife (who is a few years younger and I'm on her health insurance), so this is close to being a reality for me. All that said, is there any data to suggest that Medicare costs would be as competitive with private insurance if Medicare was not actually subsidized by everyone else? I assume that health care providers inflate costs to other consumers to compensate for their lower level of compensation from Medicare. Is that a bad assumption? What say you, cinque?

Incentives would be have to be built in to save money. I heard an example : If you give a teenager a debit card with a $1,000 they will spend a $1,000 but an unlimited debit card invites disaster.
I would think that many tests and treatments would not be demanded by patients if there was a limit.

---

---

So, you and pretty much all who support some form of Medicare for all ignore the reality that everyone else in the country and their employers who pay health care insurance premiums are actually subsidizing Medicare. In other words, if Medicare and non-Medicare costs were all summed and then distributed equitably, the share borne by Medicare would have to increase. As I see it, the total cost of health care is simply too high with most of the players all involved in some sort of massive shell games with the object being to shift costs on to someone else (which is actually rational behavior). This doesn't begin to "fix" the total cost; something virtually no one talks about.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cbo-reports-show-private-insurers-pay-physicians-hospitals-far-more-than-m/445949/

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actu
al reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Why bother arguing with ignorance? It will be there. And it is still managed well which was the point and you failed to note it.

The Postal Service is a government service and will always lose money. It exists for all citizens.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actu
al reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Why bother arguing with ignorance? It will be there. And it is still managed well which was the point and you failed to note it.

The Postal Service is a government service and will always lose money. It exists for all citizens.

---

---

You can guarantee in 35 years with already $24 trillion in debt that the US WILL NOT default on social security?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actu
al reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Why bother arguing with ignorance? It will be there. And it is still managed well which was the point and you failed to note it.

The Postal Service is a government service and will always lose money. It exists for all citizens.

---

---

You can guarantee in 35 years with already $24 trillion in debt that the US WILL NOT default on social security?

---

Don't ask me. Ask Bush Ii and Trump - they cut taxes and increased spending.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actu
al reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Why bother arguing with ignorance? It will be there. And it is still managed well which was the point and you failed to note it.

The Postal Service is a government service and will always lose money. It exists for all citizens.

---

---

You can guarantee in 35 years with already $24 trillion in debt that the US WILL NOT default on social security?

---

Don't ask me. Ask Bush Ii and Trump - they cut taxes and increased spending.

---

Can you please for the group reconcile your praise of Medicare and David's thread about the elderly couple who committed suicide because Medicare did not provide adequate support? Do you support this?

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

I suspect you don't take any meds (I don't).

---

I am glad you don't. I am 70 years old. Two years ago I was taking zero meds. Now I take 5 a day. Appreciate your good health while you have it and take advantage of it while you can.

I have done everything "right".....good diet and exercise, non-smoker, non-drinker, doctor says I don't need to lose any weight (I can still fit in my Navy uniform from 45 years ago). There isn't (wasn't) anything I could do to lower my risk for disease. However, I have had prostate cancer (10 years ago), and have had to reduce my 2.5+ mile walk each morning to a few blocks because I get dizzy and unsure on my feet. Have appointments set up with my cardiologist and a neurologist in the next couple of weeks to try to determine the problem. I was lucky to get those appointments as quick as I could (and this was after having to go to the ER two weeks ago). I had to take a nurse practitioner cardiologist as my usual cardiologist is booked into October.

I have two points to make. The first is that you never know when your health will take a dive. Even doing everything you can, you really have little control over it. The second is that all the talk is about health insurance. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you will be able to use it when you need it. I would be happy to pay out of pocket to be able to see a doctor when the situation is really urgent. I can't even do that. They are booked. Going to the ER is a waste. They just take care of the immediate symptoms, send you home and tell you to follow up with a doctor (for which you will often have a long wait for an appt.). The problem in the future (and even today) is not so much health insurance, it is being able to find someone that can see you when you do have a need.....and it is only going to get worse.

---

If you don't mind I ask. What do you consider a good diet? And why is having had prostate cancer related to reducing walks?

curtpenn said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Don't pretend to be an expert on health care costs, Medicare, pharma prices, etc. That said, I will always naturally assume that ANYTHING government is involved in will be relatively less efficient and more costly than needed. I'm less than a year away from being eligible for Medicare, but I'm still working as is my wife (who is a few years younger and I'm on her health insurance), so this is close to being a reality for me. All that said, is there any data to suggest that Medicare costs would be as competitive with private insurance if Medicare was not actually subsidized by everyone else? I assume that health care providers inflate costs to other consumers to compensate for their lower level of compensation from Medicare. Is that a bad assumption? What say you, cinque?

Incentives would be have to be built in to save money. I heard an example : If you give a teenager a debit card with a $1,000 they will spend a $1,000 but an unlimited debit card invites disaster.
I would think that many tests and treatments would not be demanded by patients if there was a limit.

---

---

So, you and pretty much all who support some form of Medicare for all ignore the reality that everyone else in the country and their employers who pay health care insurance premiums are actually subsidizing Medicare. In other words, if Medicare and non-Medicare costs were all summed and then distributed equitably, the share borne by Medicare would have to increase. As I see it, the total cost of health care is simply too high with most of the players all involved in some sort of massive shell games with the object being to shift costs on to someone else (which is actually rational behavior). This doesn't begin to "fix" the total cost; something virtually no one talks about.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cbo-reports-show-private-insurers-pay-physicians-hospitals-far-more-than-m/445949/

---

Reveals how much the health profession is overcharging for their services.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?

It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actu
al reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Why bother arguing with ignorance? It will be there. And it is still managed well which was the point and you failed to note it.

The Postal Service is a government service and will always lose money. It exists for all citizens.

---

---

You can guarantee in 35 years with already $24 trillion in debt that the US WILL NOT default on social security?

---

The US will default on a lot more than social security if that happens.

Kyle said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can someone look around the country at our post offices, DMV locations, government buildings etc. and think it's a good idea to let those people CONTROL your healthcare?


It's like you're envisioning this dream of free coverage and amazing government funded healthcare...but the actu
al reality of the situation is ghetto ass government
BS.

---

Easily. My Medicare and Social security are managed very well. I applaud them.

---

Yeah...the crap I'm paying for that I will never see. Much Applause. Great management.

Why bother arguing with ignorance? It will be there. And it is still managed well which was the point and you failed to note it.

The Postal Service is a government service and will always lose money. It exists for all citizens.

---

---

You can guarantee in 35 years with already $24 trillion in debt that the US WILL NOT default on social security?

---

Don't ask me. Ask Bush Ii and Trump - they cut taxes and increased spending.

---

Can you please for the group reconcile your praise of Medicare and David's thread about the elderly couple who committed suicide because Medicare did not provide adequate support? Do you support this?

---

I cannot. I do not know the circumstances. I said, "I love my Medicare and Social Security,"
However, surveys indicate Americans love it.

https://echpoa.wordpress.com/

https://www.asaging.org/blog/medicare-reflected-public-opinion

Waco1947 said:

---

https://echpoa.wordpress.com/


Medicare's popularity has continued since its launch. Such reliably positive public opinion likely is due to its nearly universal impact; most Americans either are enrolled in the program themselves, know someone in their family who is enrolled, or will enroll at some point in their lives. Evidence of Medicare's popularity abounds in surveys. Since 1996, roughly seven in ten Americans have expressed a favorable view of the program (Hamel, Deane, and Brodie, 2011; Harvard School of Public Health, 2013). About three-quarters describe the program as important for themselves and their family, and nearly all say it is important to the country as a whole (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009, 2014a).
As another measure of the program's popularity, in the years leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), when the public was asked about different ways to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured, expanding Medicare was among the most popular options. Surveys conducted between 1999 and 2009 showed consistent majorities, ranging from about six to eight in ten, saying they favored expanding Medicare to cover people between the ages of 55 and 64 as a way to cover more uninsured (Hamel, Deane, and Brodie, 2011).
Across most measures of Medicare's popularity, older adults express even more positive opinions than younger adults. Still, those younger than age 65 also place a lot of value on the program, with majorities saying they have a favorable opinion of Medicare and that it's important for their families. And while Medicare is popular across partisan groups, there are some differences in the intensity of that sentiment that are consistent with partisan differences on government programs in general. For example, Democrats are more likely than Republicans or Independents to say they have a "very" favorable impression of Medicare and that the program is "very" important for them and their families (see Figure 1, below).

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Don't pretend to be an expert on health care costs, Medicare, pharma prices, etc. That said, I will always naturally assume that ANYTHING government is involved in will be relatively less efficient and more costly than needed. I'm less than a year away from being eligible for Medicare, but I'm still working as is my wife (who is a few years younger and I'm on her health insurance), so this is close to being a reality for me. All that said, is there any data to suggest that Medicare costs would be as competitive with private insurance if Medicare was not actually subsidized by everyone else? I assume that health care providers inflate costs to other consumers to compensate for their lower level of compensation from Medicare. Is that a bad assumption? What say you, cinque?

Incentives would be have to be built in to save money. I heard an example : If you give a teenager a debit card with a $1,000 they will spend a $1,000 but an unlimited debit card invites disaster.
I would think that many tests and treatments would not be demanded by patients if there was a limit.

---

---

So, you and pretty much all who support some form of Medicare for all ignore the reality that everyone else in the country and their employers who pay health care insurance premiums are actually subsidizing Medicare. In other words, if Medicare and non-Medicare costs were all summed and then distributed equitably, the share borne by Medicare would have to increase. As I see it, the total cost of health care is simply too high with most of the players all involved in some sort of massive shell games with the object being to shift costs on to someone else (which is actually rational behavior). This doesn't begin to "fix" the total cost; something virtually no one talks about.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cbo-reports-show-private-insurers-pay-physicians-hospitals-far-more-than-m/445949/

---

Reveals how much the health profession is overcharging for their services.

---

Something we can agree upon. Would love to hear politicians from all sides spend more time telling us about how they plan to reduce the total cost of health care. Not holding my breath.

TexasScientist said:

---

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

I suspect you don't take any meds (I don't).

---

I am glad you don't. I am 70 years old. Two years ago I was taking zero meds. Now I take 5 a day. Appreciate your good health while you have it and take advantage of it while you can.

I have done everything "right".....good diet and exercise, non-smoker, non-drinker, doctor says I don't need to lose any weight (I can still fit in my Navy uniform from 45 years ago). There isn't (wasn't) anything I could do to lower my risk for disease. However, I have had prostate cancer (10 years ago), and have had to reduce my 2.5+ mile walk each morning to a few blocks because I get dizzy and unsure on my feet. Have appointments set up with my cardiologist and a neurologist in the next couple of weeks to try to determine the problem. I was lucky to get those appointments as quick as I could (and this was after having to go to the ER two weeks ago). I had to take a nurse practitioner cardiologist as my usual cardiologist is booked into October.

I have two points to make. The first is that you never know when your health will take a dive. Even doing everything you can, you really have little control over it. The second is that all the talk is about health insurance. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you will be able to use it when you need it. I would be happy to pay out of pocket to be able to see a doctor when the situation is really urgent. I can't even do that. They are booked. Going to the ER is a waste. They just take care of the immediate symptoms, send you home and tell you to follow up with a doctor (for which you will often have a long wait for an appt.). The problem in the future (and even today) is not so much health insurance, it is being able to find someone that can see you when you do have a need.....and it is only going to get worse.

---

If you don't mind I ask. What do you consider a good diet? And why is having had prostate cancer related to reducing walks?

---

I consider a good diet lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains, limit salt intake, avoid caffeine as much as possible, red meat only a few times a month and eat fish as much as reasonable. Also stay away from processed foods and fatty sauces as much as possible as well as limiting sugar intake . Basically...thinking about what you are going to eat instead of always just going for what you would like to eat. As an example, no doubt I love BBQ, especially ribs, but only have it a handful of times during the year.

Your second question you didn't read what I wrote closely enough. Prostate cancer had nothing to do with my current walking problem I am having today. In fact my walking increased after the cancer. My walks are limited right now because of dizziness and feeling unsure on my feet. My doctors are still trying to determine the cause.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

https://echpoa.wordpress.com/


Medicare's popularity has continued since its launch. Such reliably positive public opinion likely is due to its nearly universal impact; most Americans either are enrolled in the program themselves, know someone in their family who is enrolled, or will enroll at some point in their lives. Evidence of Medicare's popularity abounds in surveys. Since 1996, roughly seven in ten Americans have expressed a favorable view of the program (Hamel, Deane, and Brodie, 2011; Harvard School of Public Health, 2013). About three-quarters describe the program as important for themselves and their family, and nearly all say it is important to the country as a whole (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009, 2014a).
As another measure of the program's popularity, in the years leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), when the public was asked about different ways to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured, expanding Medicare was among the most popular options. Surveys conducted between 1999 and 2009 showed consistent majorities, ranging from about six to eight in ten, saying they favored expanding Medicare to cover people between the ages of 55 and 64 as a way to cover more uninsured (Hamel, Deane, and Brodie, 2011).
Across most measures of Medicare's popularity, older adults express even more positive opinions than younger adults. Still, those younger than age 65 also place a lot of value on the program, with majorities saying they have a favorable opinion of Medicare and that it's important for their families. And while Medicare is popular across partisan groups, there are some differences in the intensity of that sentiment that are consistent with partisan differences on government programs in general. For example, Democrats are more likely than Republicans or Independents to say they have a "very" favorable impression of Medicare and that the program is "very" important for them and their families (see Figure 1, below).

---

---

Everyone loves free until it starts running short of funding. When free becomes long waits for minor services (think months), subpar care (fewer and less experienced doctors) and being denied care due to your age, diagnosis, etc., then few people will like it.

Unfortunately, at that point there will be no turning back. Funding will be limited. Physicians will be less experienced and perhaps less qualified. You will be designated for hospice and it won't matter.

blackie said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

I suspect you don't take any meds (I don't).

---

I am glad you don't. I am 70 years old. Two years ago I was taking zero meds. Now I take 5 a day. Appreciate your good health while you have it and take advantage of it while you can.

I have done everything "right".....good diet and exercise, non-smoker, non-drinker, doctor says I don't need to lose any weight (I can still fit in my Navy uniform from 45 years ago). There isn't (wasn't) anything I could do to lower my risk for disease. However, I have had prostate cancer (10 years ago), and have had to reduce my 2.5+ mile walk each morning to a few blocks because I get dizzy and unsure on my feet. Have appointments set up with my cardiologist and a neurologist in the next couple of weeks to try to determine the problem. I was lucky to get those appointments as quick as I could (and this was after having to go to the ER two weeks ago). I had to take a nurse practitioner cardiologist as my usual cardiologist is booked into October.

I have two points to make. The first is that you never know when your health will take a dive. Even doing everything you can, you really have little control over it. The second is that all the talk is about health insurance. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you will be able to use it when you need it. I would be happy to pay out of pocket to be able to see a doctor when the situation is really urgent. I can't even do that. They are booked. Going to the ER is a waste. They just take care of the immediate symptoms, send you home and tell you to follow up with a doctor (for which you will often have a long wait for an appt.). The problem in the future (and even today) is not so much health insurance, it is being able to find someone that can see you when you do have a need.....and it is only going to get worse.

---

If you don't mind I ask. What do you consider a good diet? And why is having had prostate cancer related to reducing walks?

---

I consider a good diet lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains, limit salt intake, avoid caffeine as much as possible, red meat only a few times a month and eat fish as much as reasonable. Also stay away from processed foods and fatty sauces as much as possible as well as limiting sugar intake . Basically...thinking about what you are going to eat instead of always just going for what you would like to eat. As an example, no doubt I love BBQ, especially ribs, but only have it a handful of times during the year.

Your second question you didn't read what I wrote closely enough. Prostate cancer had nothing to do with my current walking problem I am having today. In fact my walking increased after the cancer. My walks are limited right now because of dizziness and feeling unsure on my feet. My doctors are still trying to determine the cause.

---

Thanks for answering. I hope you get a good answer for the cause of dizziness. You diet sounds good. You may want to cut out red meat and fish altogether, for optimal results. Check out Dr. Dean Ornish's and/or Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's work related to diet and health.

Waco1947 said:

---

https://www.asaging.org/blog/medicare-reflected-public-opinion

---

Are many middle class people forced to purchase supplemental insurance because of Medicare coverage?

Kyle said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

https://www.asaging.org/blog/medicare-reflected-public-opinion

---

Are many middle class people forced to purchase supplemental insurance because of Medicare coverage?

---

I don't know that anyone is forced to buy supplemental, but if you can afford it, you are brain dead not to do so. I know personally, my supplemental company (BCBS of Texas) is losing money on me. If you are going to buy it, you need to do so when you become eligible for Medicare. At that point you are guaranteed acceptance. After that you lose that guarantee to be able to buy supplemental and might not be able to because of your medical history or current conditions. So, perhaps in that since you are forced?