Medicare For All - A Losing Idea

[RDKirk]

The difference lies in the tactics. The opposition to universal health care and the opposition to pro-choice are the same in the misinformation on which their arguments are based.

You didn't understand what I said.

The person who is unconcerned about the rate of abortions is operating under the same anti-life spirit as the person who is unconcerned about the state of health care.

 

[Speedwell]

You didn't understand what I said.

The person who is unconcerned about the rate of abortions is operating under the same anti-life spirit as the person who is unconcerned about the state of health care.

Assuming he equates pre-birth life with post-birth life. And equating a person who is pro-choice with a person who is unconcerned about abortion is part of the misinformation I was referring to.

 

[mark46]

Sure, we are going to get much better coverage, cover everyone, eliminate deductibles and copays. And our costs will go down.

The only thing more unlikely that this happening is that the American voters and then the Congress will buy such plans.

I don't really expect that the monthly payment would be that significantly reduced, but I would expect the elimination of co-pays/deductibles and an expansion of coverage. Importantly, a serious illness would not bankrupt anyone.

However, the big point you're establishing is that the Democrats are certainly not making it clear how the payment system would actually work. They don't seem to realize it's not clear to the public, and they don't realize that opposing forces are creating as much disinformation as possible.

The spirit of opposition to universal health care is the same spirit that drives abortion-on-demand.

It's a single life-hating spirit working both sides of the street.

 

[cow451]

Actually, you are only forced to have insurance on a particular car if you intend to drive it on public roads. Owning a car does not trigger the need of insurance.

People that never get healthcare should become hermits, then?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Citation needed.

Sure. Not a problem.
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Maths-...64942384&s=gateway&sprefix=basic+math+&sr=8-1

 

[Albion]

The spirit of opposition to universal health care is the same spirit that drives abortion-on-demand.

It's a single life-hating spirit working both sides of the street.

As usual, Socialism looks great on paper but it also never delivers.

This proposal is just campaign talk. Not one person on that stage believes that it is achievable without instituting a totalitarian government.

And if it were possible to cover everyone--not have a good and fair system of health care, mind you--it could be no better than all the other systems in other countries in which your bandages are free but you had better forget about that life-saving operation (unless you fly to the USA for treatment!).

 

[mark46]

I disagree.

Sanders certainly believes in a government funded single payer system. It seems that Warren does also. Harris is the third, but she waffles.

As always, the issues are cost, transition, and potential buy-in costs.
=======
As far as "covering everyone", a Medicare for All plan isn't necessary for this result. One simply needs to add a public option to Obamacare and increase the subsidies. The cost is estimated at $750B over 10 years. This is hardly even a major change from the status quo, just an increase in funding to an existing program.

.

This proposal is just campaign talk. Not one person on that stage believes that it is achievable without instituting a totalitarian government.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

One candidate opined that if the Democratic candidate supported Medicare For All, he or she would win only 2 states. I suspect that this is only a slight exaggeration.

3 of the top 4 candidates support plans where you would not be ALLOWED to keep you work-based medical plan, even after 10 years.

The GOAL of Medicare for All in fine, as long as each citizen has the CHOICE to keep his or her work-plan. If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.

This is the problem in this country, that Democrats, who are supposed to be at least a little liberal, are so far to the right that they are against ideas that are commonly accepted in other developed nations even by their conservatives.

This is why the Democratic Party will lose again. They will choose another "pragmatic centrist" who is really nothing more than a conservative Republican except on the topics abortion and gay marriage/rights. Why vote for such a person? The Republicans are better at being corporate sycophants - why would I vote for a Democrat sycophant like Biden or Harris or Warren or any of those other idiots who lie to me nonstop? At least a Republican will tell me he is against Medicare for all, flat out. Harris tells me she's for it but then describes her plan which is one that is not Medicare for all but is some stupid Obamacare type concession to the health insurance industry (because, of course, they PAY her).

The Democrats put Trump in office and unless they nominate Bernie it's a guarantee that they'll put Trump in for four more years.

And I wholeheartedly believe that every Democrat in leadership and in the party would actually prefer Trump over Bernie any day.

 

[DZoolander]

The goal is total government control of healthcare ... it's maybe halfway there now ... you are looking at the way it is now .... medicare is a government program .... medicare for all is a government program for all.

And the truth is - Medicare offers far better coverage than pretty much any private plan out there.

So what’s the issue? lol

 

[ArmenianJohn]

As usual, Socialism looks great on paper but it also never delivers.

Wrong. Socialism has been delivering for decades, since FDR, in the form of Social Security and Medicare. Beyond those two programs, just look at all the socialist services provided by government that nobody is against such as food and drug regulation, trash hauling, police/first responders, schools, etc. It's clear that socialism not only delivers but it can't be touched in many areas. Watch what happens to a politician who votes to take away Social Security or Medicare (but you can't because it won't happen because it's political suicide if anyone would dare to try it).

This proposal is just campaign talk. Not one person on that stage believes that it is achievable without instituting a totalitarian government.

Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard both believe it's achievable with instituting a totalitarian government and they are both correct. The people support it and want it. It is only the health insurance industry and their lobbying $$$ that have most Dems and Republicans in their pockets which is preventing it from happening. Remove that obstacle and it would fly through in no time and everyone would be ecstatic.

And if it were possible to cover everyone--not have a good and fair system of health care, mind you--it could be no better than all the other systems in other countries in which your bandages are free but you had better forget about that life-saving operation (unless you fly to the USA for treatment!).

Every other major developed nation in the world (and many minor, less-developed nations) covers everyone so obviously it's very possible. Your claim of having to fly to the USA for treatment is a myth which you are either repeating from an unsubstantiated source (as most right-wing sources are) or you're just telling anecdotally to try to support your claim.

 

[Albion]

I disagree.

Sanders certainly believes in a government funded single payer system.

That's probably true, which is why I included the proviso that it would take someone who favors a totalitarian form of government.

As always, the issue is cost, transition, and potential buy-in costs.[/quote
Oh no. That's like saying that turning base metal into gold or finding the Fountain of Youth is just a problem of cost, transition, and buy-in costs.

[quote As far as simply "covering everyone", a Medicare for All plan isn't necessary for this result.

I'll give you that. The idea of taking a program that most of the population has been paying into for years with their taxes in anticipation of retirement will simply have everyone else, legal or not, given the same coverage without any buy-in is about as unfair an idea as has come along lately.

One simply needs to add a public option to Obamacare and increase the subsidies. The cost is estimated at $750B over 10 years.

By whom?

 

[Albion]

Wrong. Socialism has been delivering for decades, since FDR, in the form of Social Security and Medicare.

And you think that's Socialism?? LOL

 

[DZoolander]

Medicare (Government Insurance) - My father in law goes in a few weeks ago for open heart surgery. Choice of any hospital he wants to go to (because they all take it). He goes in, has his surgery, stays until the hospital is ready to discharge him, and he's done.

Me - with Aetna (good plan) - My daughter has an emergency. I go into my in-network hospital, have her taken care of, etc. Two weeks later receive word from my insurance plan that I haven't met my deductible yet, so another $5k out of my pocket. Furthermore, the anesthesiologist at the in-network hospital was an independent contractor and therefore wasn't in network, so his charge doesn't count toward my deductible. Add another $6k. That's on top of my nearly $1500/mo premium to cover my family.

Who fared better? lol

 

[DZoolander]

My son needs a certain type of therapy. Closest in network provider is 40 miles away. So, for my $18,000 per year, I get the pleasure of driving 80 miles round trip three times per week, paying the full fare until I meet my deductible.

Medicaid people? There are 10 providers within a five my radius of my house - three of which do housecalls.

Who has better coverage?

 

[Albion]

Medicare is not the issue. "Medicare for all" coverage is the issue.

 

[DZoolander]

I don't know why that would be an issue. I do agree on the illegal alien stuff. But, hey, eliminate the premiums that everyone pays, the employer contributions toward private insurance that are paid, funnel that toward the payroll tax which supports Medicare - and extend the same benefits to everyone. That doesn't pose me any problems.

 

[Albion]

Two weeks later receive word from my insurance plan that I haven't met my deductible yet, so another $5k out of my pocket. Furthermore, the anesthesiologist at the in-network hospital was an independent contractor and therefore wasn't in network, so his charge doesn't count toward my deductible. Add another $6k. That's on top of my nearly $1500/mo premium to cover my family.

Those services will not be done for free under any government plan. Providers have to be paid, etc. So who pays for your anesthesiologist etc, if the Dems have their way? Well, taxes, of course. And don't forget that the same people pushing for this have said that they will also cover much of the population of Central America as well--free of charge.

So do you also imagine that if we tax Bill Gates and other billionaires at 100% of their income, the economy will not suffer and all residents will be in good health. This is fantasy.

And I will tell you something else that is fantasy; that is the notion that the Democrats in Congress who are advocating for Medicare for All will for a moment consider putting the tax burden on the millionaires and billionaires who are their own benefactors, the people who contribute millions to the party's candidates' campaign funds.

 

[DZoolander]

The same people

Those services will not be done for free under any government plan. Providers have to be paid, etc. So who pays for your anesthesiologist etc, if the Dems have their way? Well, taxes, of course. And don't forget that the same people pushing for this have said that they will also cover much of the population of Central America as well--free of charge.

The same "people" who paid for the anesthesiologist at my father in law's surgery. The general medicare fund.

Medicare for all isn't "free" healthcare. It's just choosing to pay for it in a less corrupt model than the conventional/private insurance model provides.

 

[DZoolander]

I do agree with you on the illegal aliens receiving health benefits part though. I think that's a fool's errand.

 

[Albion]

Medicare for all isn't "free" healthcare. It's just choosing to pay for it in a less corrupt model than the conventional/private insurance model provides.

It's being sold to the voters as free (which of course would be impossible), and if it is not free then you can expect to have poorer coverage, higher deductibles, longer waits, and much higher taxes to cover everyone who -- unlike yourself -- currently is underinsured. And remember also that no private insurance plans will be allowed to supplement your government plan if the candidates now promoting Medicare for All are telling the truth about that.

Every advocate talks as though other countries have super health systems, but they never ever mention these things which occur everywhere that Socialized Medicine has been instituted.