3 ms·
No - Medicare for all is what is being proposed. There is a stark difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare, for those who can enjoy it (65+ or meeti
by caycep 5y ago
No - Medicare for all is what is being proposed.
There is a stark difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare, for those who can enjoy it (65+ or meeting criteria for chronically disabled), is pretty good insurance. You have your pick of specialists or primary cares, it reimburses providers pretty well, and ironically, processes claims faster than private insurance. There are some glitches that should be fixed sure, but it is definitely viable as a healthcare plan.
Medicaid in comparison, is bare bones - the political reasons I'll let other people comment more, but access to care is severely restricted, it doesn't pay providers enough to keep the lights on, and is not really capable of providing any semblance of the modern standard of care.
- Spooky23 5y agoMedicaid also varies by state. South Carolina for a long time did not provide any “optional” coverage, and would advise some people to move in with relatives in New York or Massachusetts to enroll there.
- ars 5y agoIn my state it's precisely the opposite - Medicare is horrible, they only pay 80% until you meet a deductible. Never mind the money - just the hassle of the paperwork of paying all those bills will make anyone crazy. In contrast Medicaid is awesome - zero copay or deductible, just show up and use your insurance card. There is also Medicare Advantage, which actually is quite good - and it's private insurance that the government pays for. So maybe we don't need either "for all" programs, but rather a universal subsidy for people to buy their own insurance. > it doesn't pay providers enough to keep the lights on That's true about both Medicaid and Medicare, which is why neither will ever be offered to all, not without a salary cut to Doctors.