"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

Sounds like he disagrees with a progressive tax system to me, but he has yet to answer the question.
The reason I ask is because the whole argument goes bye bye when you bring taxes down to the portion that can be paid by the poor.

 

I can easily live without firearms - maybe better. I can't live without treatment if I have a fatal disease. See the difference?

 

Everyone in socialized medicine countries pays income tax ?? So you’re proposing a flat tax in the US for fairness ??

 

Then don’t buy a gun but get treatment.

 

That's the plan,

 

I hear the screeching already

 

every US citizen is covered

 

You are entitled to receive what is paid for.

It does not have to be "cheap" it has to be affordab

What do you mean no one said it had to be cheap. That is the whole purpose of this thread. If coverage is not affordable coverage is not available. There is a mill dollar home down the street, I am allowed to buy it, they will sell it to me for the price, but it is not available to me for purchase if I don't have the funds. By your thought process everyone has the opportunty for coverage now, alll they have to do is work two fulltime jobs. .

 

That’s a meaningless statement.

 

You entitled to what you pay for. The problem with socialized medicine is that people have no control over their treatments. That is why privatized healthcare insurance consisting of low mandate catastrophic coverage in combination with health savings accounts should be available to everyone including those on Medicare and Medicaid.

 

No, the 'whole purpose of this thread' was to discuss Casio-Cortez's idea of who is going to pay for Medicaid for all'. As with all threads, it takes a few twists and turns. Absolutely nothing in this world is 'free', which includes health care, and health insurance.

You seem to believe that the fact that you breath entitles you to the fruits of other people's labor. It does not. You also seem to think that need and want are the same animal. They are not. The basis of this country has always been to reach for your goals, there are those, such as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who seem to think that regardless of people's contributions to societal pools, they should receive the same products as those who actually make the contributions to the societal pools. Your own words place you in that group that wants other people to pay for what you receive.

Now mind you, other people do pay for (by subsidizing) those who cannot work, or can only make minimal contribution to societal pools. However, since insurance is not health CARE, it should be eliminated as mandatory, and paying for services received by those who cannot contribute at the time of service is actually the more effective way to provide basic services to the low/no income group.

As to your theoretical situation, to which I offered a response, there are choices in life. I've not had many things people consider 'standard' by todays measuring stick to be able to pay for things that I actually need, like life sustaining drugs. If you claim people need to work two jobs to pay for their insurance premiums, then perhaps either a different insurance policy is needed, or find an employer who does offer insurance.

Why do you feel it is 'my' responsibility to make sure 'you' have what you feel you should have?

 

Hadley in 2008 showed that private insurance premiums are at most increased by ~ 2% to cover uncompensated costs not covered by the government. The uninsured pay over 50% of their bills.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.w399

 

As you've been told countless times, those average Americans are going to still pay for healthcare, as they do now. It will be less costly and the premiums will go to the gov't or their proxy. Without the high markup cost of the middleman insurance industry.
A whole layer of unneeded costs will go away.

 

The 'Government' doesn't pay for jack. TAXPAYERS pay for it. So either via insurance premiums or taxes, or direct payment to service providers, those who do pay, pay for those who don't/can't.

 

And would it not require a layer or two of governmental bureaucracy to administer said 'single payer system'? With the same high efficiency of which they handle all their other programs? *sarcasm alert*

 

Really.
Link?
Do all the major countries in the world have a 2 layer bureaucracy to run their healthcare system?

 

If the government is the 'single payer', who reviews the submitted claims? If approved, who pays them?

Link to what?

 

Check out the overhead rate of Medicare vs private insurance.
Then of course there is the whole profit thing.

 

Link to show that the gov't would need to be a 2 layer system. You made this claim.
I assume you're trying to imply there will still be a middle person involved?

Is the Medicare system 2 tier?
The VA system?

 

Yes but the amount of cost shifting and government transfer is very much smaller than what the socialized medicine advocates imply it is. From the linked study the increase in private insurance premiums due to cost shifting to cover the uninsured is most likely less than 1%.

 

Indeed they are. I just stated the two layers. in my post. The same people who review medical claims (other than standard) are not the one's who pay them.

 

Then check the rate of fraud. Profit is ~ 3%.

 

A couple hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, and pretty soon you have some real money.

 

I have not read your link as of the moment (at work), however, think about what other methods of offsetting unpaid medical bills would effect costs.... the actual charge itself. It is not just a matter of insurance premiums, or handing the money to the government to let them pay for it. By removing any said 'insurance' or other payer, you are removing the additional costs that have increased the cost of healthcare also.

 

Yes, and we're all gonna mail our premiums in, everyone paying the same, and we're not going to ask our providers to take a hit in order to make it happen,...............not