What Are Some Medicare Programs

Why are some promoting "Medicare for All" and some promoting "Medicaid for All"?

There's a pretty big difference between the two

Medicare is the federal health care system for people aged 65 and over (some people receive Medicare Advantage, where the government pays the premium for a private health insurance plan in exchange for certain policies). It's a huge claim, but it's also quite popular because it's been around for a long time and most importantly, it doesn't control costs well (in terms of payments to providers). As such, most people like it a lot because it acts like people tend to think government programs. Previous attempts to control costs (by lowering reimbursement rates) were deeply unpopular and ultimately failed. Remember, this population group covers all Americans regardless of economic status. As such, it is protected by a cadre of politically active American voters.

Medicaid is a completely different ball of wax. Medicaid isn't that popular, but that's because it operates under strict regulations. Medicaid is self-administered by the states and does not provide full reimbursement to providers like Medicare. As a result, far fewer doctors are accepting Medicaid

A 2011 national survey of doctors found that 31 percent were unwilling to admit new Medicaid patients, with acceptance rates varying widely between states. Across the country, the study estimated that 69 percent of doctors accepted Medicaid, but state acceptance rates ranged from 40 percent in New Jersey to 99 percent in Wyoming, according to the study published in Health Affairs. This was an extension before the ACA and before changes to the reimbursement fee.

Obamacare my changed that (it increased payments for a year to try to increase adoption rates). Still, Medicaid is not that widely used. This sentence describes the difference (emphasis mine)

The 2013-2014 fee hike was aimed at making Medicaid adoption more enticing, by making these fees equivalent to Medicare reimbursement rates .

Medicare, the more popular program, is much easier to sell (Image source)

Since the names are similar and the programs are poorly understood, it's not difficult to see why some would sell Medicare for All. In reality, Medicaid would be the most likely program for everyone. Medicaid, which already has cost control mechanisms in place, would simply be extended to anyone without private insurance. This is what government efforts like Nevada are trying to do.

However, the Nevada Care Plan would work within Medicaid, but it wouldn't be Medicaid - meaning reimbursements would have to be canceled after the bill is signed.

Medicaid - and the Medicaid extension - are specially designed for the poor, and around 600,000 people in Nevada use it. Of the state's 2.9 million inhabitants, around 11% remain without health insurance.


Medicare reimbursement is almost chargeable. Medicaid reimbursement is well below cost and subsidized by the providers who use it. The money to fund the Medicaid grant comes mostly from private insurance, which costs a little more than Medicare and a little more than expense. Medicaid also serves some very different populations in sub-programs. Home care and the care of the disabled through Medicaid is very expensive. But Medicaid for low-income non-disabled people who are not in nursing homes is much cheaper than private health insurance.


This answer confuses me even more. When you speak of "cost control" do you mean patient costs, federal government costs, insurance company costs? "Cost control" can also mean people get fewer reimbursements, but it can also mean doctors have to accept patients as a condition of their license for lower fees (or pay a tax if they have a low percentage of medical patients, etc.) .). )


Also that poll of program popularity - they say people are promoting "Medicare for All" because Medicare is a more popular program today. I think that makes sense in terms of propaganda, but - both programs are very popular with the population, so it seems strange that the choice of model is out of the question.


The link to Control Medicare Costs does not seem to match what you claim. Unless I misunderstood it, it is said that in 2015 the "Doctor Fix" (the temporal - as in "almost 20 years" - provisions that delayed the Medicare cut for doctors) was finally lifted and a new payment system was set up has been. From the link: Could you elaborate on this in a little more detail?


@ SJuan76 The Doc Fix was an annual Medicare reform prevention agreement that set reduced Medicare payments to doctors (and other providers). In essence, Congress agreed to make the cuts to control the growth of the program, but considered it politically impossible. They eventually agreed to a permanent change so they wouldn't have to pass the same agreement every year.