Medicare is not sustainable in its current form. Again, what makes it even remotely viable is private insurance supplemental plans. Obviously we are in no position to get rid of it, but we are in a position to prevent its expansion to all American citizens. Its simply not scalable.
That’s the whole thing, who will pay indeed? They are trying to pass it off as a revenue neutral or revenue saving idea. But there are conflicting accounts. Even if it was revenue neutral, does the burden of who pays shift? And if the cost is a lot more than expected they’ll just take what they need to fund it.
You missed my point. My point was simply that there would be or is a level to the cost of anything in which someone views it as not worth it. The 65% was a hypothetical arbitrary number. I’m assuming that you would agree that if the level of taxation got to X amount (whatever that is) you would not view it as better per say than private health insurance.
Explain why you think it’s not “scalable”? What percentage of current medicare recipients do not rely on supplemental plans?
And there’s always rationing.
It’s amusing that you think private health insurance doesn’t “ration” care… It’s called a denial of claim…
zero percent. Medicare pays for 80% of costs. Why would anyone willingly pay 20% of their medical costs, which could add up significantly.
Everyone will pay. Besides everyone being covered, that’s a huge benefit of a single payer system. A single payer system can help to streamline and standardize care.
I’m not trying to be a wise ass, just genially asking. What do you mean by “denial of claim”? I’ve had health insurance from my employer for 32 years and have never had a problem.
There are certainly examples, but that is the exception not the rule. And if you are really trying to compare free market capitalism with Government control………………….
Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…………
That’s not what you are trying to do is it?
You made the claim that “what makes it even remotely viable is private insurance supplemental plans”… I am asking you what percentage of medicare recipients do have private supplemental insurance plans.
Yea, that’s working out real well in England.
Hey look, if I’m not paying more and I’m not sitting for months waiting on something, why should I complain? But when you say everyone will pay, I fully expect no one to get a free ride. I don’t care how poor you are, pay something.
You have been lucky… Just google denial of claim and you will see plenty of stories before the ACA where people reached their lifetime maximum on a policy, were denied coverage for a myriad of reasons… The most common was preexisting conditions…
The other respondent made the point that people are happy with Medicare, and to that I simply stated people are generally happy with a thing that works well and that they don’t have to spend a lot of money on. I was only using 65% as an extreme example in which many would likely it so much then.
I’m not sure you can call it luck. I’ve been in unions all of my life and my jobs have provided health insurance. I do not believe there is a limit.
A google search shows about 90% of Medicare patients have some form of supplemental insurance. Where are you going with this?
Oh you’re right. No argument from me. But you could have gone a lot lower than 65% and still be considered extreme. At 65% you’d have an apocalypse. I think 25% would be extreme enough 
Unions has been very good at negotiating good health plans for their members, not all non-union companies has protected their employees like you have experienced…
What evidence is there that business development and entrepreneurship is better in other countries that have socialized medicine?
