This is what I’m trying to figure out. Medicare is kind of an advantage, but your out of pocket medical expenses in Thailand aren’t that bad unless you get cancer or something, then you just relocate back? American basic healthcare prices are just really messed up, so your insurance doesn’t really pay off until something serious happens.
I don't know about Thailand, but in France you can apply to join their healthcare system after 3 months. In the meantime you must have private insurance but it's a fraction of what it is here.
Spain is similar. I don’t understand how they are allowing retirees to just move there, but I have friends doing it. I’m not counting on it being that way when I retire since it sounds to good to be true (so it eventually probably won’t be true).
This is not correct. There was no prohibition on private insurance. Rather, all would have been required to participate in the public plan to spread the risk. That's the only way it could work. If someone wanted to also pay for a private plan, that was allowed.
They had to prohibit overlapping coverage in order to make sure that all private practice physicians accepted the medicare system, which has lower reimbursement rates than private insurance. You can pay for more coverage, because that doesn't compete with the public system, but you cannot pay for private insurance that may lead to lower access for publicly insured persons.
Yes, I did not read closely enough. You referred to new medicare for all plans, while I responded recalling similar false accusations against Obamacare. Some of these new proposals do not allow duplicate plans. Nevertheless, I don't think this particular objection makes them DOA. I believe this is an objection that could be overcome with discussion.
No, this is incorrect. Here is the actual section from the bill:
> SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for— (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
You could technically also buy extra insurance for… something extra, but your existing insurance plan would have become illegal.
This was a huge sticking point, despite how many people try to deny it or downplay it.
I'm honestly curious what the real meat of the objections to this were (I never heard much about this sticking point). Why would you want duplicating coverage anyway? Is it not strictly better for any consumer to only be paying for the extra coverage you want on top of the public coverage?
I didn't say I had objections to it. I said it was unpopular with the general public when you told them the details.
This is an example of a situation where people dislike the system but when you ask them about it they like their part of the system.
For example, people generally have an extremely low opinion of Congress, but on average they like their own Congress person.
You get similar results when you poll people about healthcare and health insurance: People generally hate the health insurance system, but if you start talking about taking away their health insurance or their doctor and replacing it with an unknown system, they get upset.
> Why would you want duplicating coverage anyway? Is it not strictly better for any consumer to only be paying for the extra coverage you want on top of the public coverage?
Duplicating coverage is superfluous if you assume the new plan would be better in every way and you give up nothing in the process, obviously.
However, the fear is that upending the entire system would require people to give things up and replace it with unknowns. There's a good chance that some people would be forced to be reassigned to different doctors under a centrally-planned system, or that access to things would be reset and need to be re-determined under new guidelines.
If this doesn't make sense, consider a situation where someone got special approval for off-label coverage of a drug (happens all the time) but the new government insurance had stricter guidelines about which conditions could be treated with which drugs (to keep cost down). Those people could lose access to medications or treatments that were covered privately.
We tend to think of "Medicare for All" type plans as being without downsides, but when you get into the details of changing the entire health care system out and banning the old ways, it's inevitable that some people would start losing things they liked. And that's where people get upset.
To be fair, there was a log of disingenuous fear mongering around the notion of "the government is getting rid of your insurance".
It would be extremely difficult to get an accurate idea of what the general public thinks about a measure before certain interests get involved with publicizing FUD.
Because it's being disingenuous. The insurance isn't getting removed, just like "the HVAC tech is removing heating" is not a coherent statement if the tech is just replacing your furnace. You might have opinions about the performance of the new furnace, but saying that the heating is going to be removed is simply untrue beyond discussing the logistics of that change.
I don't think you understand what people disliked about the idea.
They understood that it was being replaced. Nobody ever pretended like health care was going away and being banned. People weren't assuming that. That would be nonsensical.
People thought the bill was going to be about a Medicare option for all, but then it came out as forced Medicare for all. People didn't like that.
It wasn't fear mongering, people just didn't like that. It's demonstrably unpopular, and this isn't news to anyone who has been paying attention.
What I have works. It doesn’t for everyone. But it does for me.
If I’m too busy to read a thousand-page bill, it’s rational to default to the status quo. (Also, Americans like competition. Banning duplicate coverage sounds like ruling out the competition.)
Seriously? Your claim is that Apple is afraid being able to make calls on an iPad would cannibalize iPhone sales? You think this is what's preventing people from walking around talking on iPads? Apple prevented calls on iPads so that AT&T would offer a cheaper cellular plan for iPads. Apple completely cannibalized their iPod business with the iPhone. They have proven over and over that they will cannibalize their own product lines.
Network operators could offer cheap data plans without allowing voice over them. Works for the Samsung S-Series tablets. Data is cheap, phone calls are disabled or charged separately.
For some users (e.g. elderly) an iPad with its large screen would make a better phone. They don't walk around talking (anymore). Also when wearing headphones, there is no need to lift the phone to the ear. Same goes talking to the watch.
