Most Democrats think "Medicare For All" means they can still keep their plans

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion

I think it should be raised on a very step progressive incline

See, aren’t opinions wonderful

 

Why shouldn’t it be counted? How would calling Medicare and Medicaid something different and adding more people cut the cost and stop it from being the largest driver?

The Dems gave opposed all reform efforts

 

It shouldn’t be counted because it is an insurance. It is supposed to be a self funding pool that pays out on retirement. I am for SS being moved to a personal retirement account that cannot be stolen by congress and does not add to the overall budget.

Eliminating all of our current federal and state health plans and consolidating them into a universal program would reduce administrative costs, eliminate duplication, cut back on fraud, and being the largest network on the market it would be able to directly negotiate for lower prices. In addition it removes the profit motive.

What reforms with a better replacement have been opposed? List some examples, I would very much like to review them.

 

Were you punished for getting an "A" in class?

Were you punished for hitting a home run, scoring a goal, making a touchdown?

Why punish success?

If we aren't going to get rid of the Federal income tax, then at least make it fair with a 10% flat rate for ALL income earners.

 

First, there's this which proves my point that it's slanted to left...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/commonwealth-fund/

And there's this...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flawed-study-ranks-united-states-as-the-worst-health-care-system

 

Damn right.

Remember when Obama and his Leftist sycophants told us that FullRetardCare would save everyone $2500, not to mention how right out of the gate the cost of getting the web portal up went skyrocketing waaaaaaaay over budget?

It was a boondoggle from DAY ONE.

And what about the states who looked into implementing a single [tax]payer system and discovered the cost was prohibitively high?

Finally, more to your point, how is single payer going to be cheaper to the millions of Americans who are getting their HC plans paid in part or whole by their employers? And why should those people lose those benefits and pay more for their healthcare - to pay for the mooches who want a handout to pay for their healthcare in part or whole?

It's risible how the "progressive" drones in the Cult of Fiasco contend that this is somehow "good", "fair", and most laughable of all, "altruistic" when they're just stealing from people either to line their own pockets or to pay for their slavish and irrational devotion to government and all things government-run.

Giving the corrupt, inefficient and self-serving political and bureaucratic classes in Washington control over our healthcare is the WORST IDEA EVER. Like everything else our massively indebted and inefficient government does it won't save people money, it won't improve service and it won't stay on budget.

When money grubbing Lefties say they want government-run/taxpayer-funded healthcare what they're really saying is that they want other people to pay for their healthcare.

 

But SSI is mandatory spending, that regardless of what taxes fund it that must be paid.

How?

 

The level of tax is lower than the private healthcare you currently pay.

 

And?

Raising my taxes isn't going to make healthcare cheaper.

 

Yes it will.

 

Pavlov's dog had the same reaction to the sound of a bell. The truth is that companies that sell food and drugs are extremely powerful. Any attempt by any politician to protect public health will squashed by the lobbyists. (It was proposed that Welfare could not be used on junk food and sods, but PepsiCo sent their people in to kill it.)

It doesn't matter if there is a D or an R by their name; your health takes a back seat to profits.

 

No it's not, because I'll be paying higher fricking taxes.

Try to keep up.

 

"Most Democrats think "Medicare For All" means they can still keep their plans"

I only support medicare for all if you don't need a supplemental plan as insurance companies charge the elderly about the same for those plans as normal plans

there should only be co-pays (to prevent abuse of system)

 

Omg. Yes, you pay tax but then you wouldn'tt pay private healthcare. The amount of tax is lower than private healthcare. How do I know? I pay tax in the UK for the NHS which is much lower per month than you guys pay per month in private health care.

I think you need to keep up.

 

And you get what you pay for. Long wait times, doctor shortages, bed shortages, etc.

 

I think you should pay the max rate, pay YOUR fair share

 

I will explain how it works.

In addition to your doctor, the hospital has Accident and Emergency (A&E). So say you broke your leg, you go to A&E, they x-ray, operate if need be and put a cast on. All same day or over two days.

If you have cataracts, it's not an A&E treatment so the doctor advises the hospital and you're put on a waiting list. Normally 2 months to get a cataract done. You receive your appointment date and you then go get it done.

Either way, you continue to pay the relevant taxes that the UK has. But in America, you pay double.

Now, say I wanted to speed something up, say I wanted an MRI scan. I pay £500 and get seen next day. How much is a MRI scan in America!!

 

Why don't they just do that now?

I will tell you why. Medicare would be overwhelmed, and would rely on those that already privately fund their insurance to support those who desire to be on single payer. Like most things, this tactic's only purpose is redistribution of wealth by requiring those who already support their own healthcare to support others that can't or won't.

I don't really care what every other collectivist progressive country does. I don't want to be taxed at Norway's 60% in order to pay for everybody else's perceived entitled standard of living. My healthcare is great now... why should I switch, other than you think I should pay for these other people too?

 

And the Doctor shortage won't get better by trying to increase Medical School attendees by lowering admissions standards.

 

And all we need to do to achieve this.. is give our money. That is what it all comes down to. We can dance around statistics and collectivist non-sense, but its all about money.

 

But that's RACIST and Discriminatory and would be struck down by some activist judge,,,

 

Not sure I understand the question.

 

We have both, NHS and private. Even on the NHS, you can privately pay to speed up not emergency procedures.

It's lightyears ahead compared to the American system.

 

here's my analogy...
what's being proposed in this thread is similar to getting solar panels to save on electricity costs, here's the breakdown:

• original electric bill: $225/month
• solar panel lease: $189/month for twenty years without battery kit
  
• new actual electric bill: $125/month, more depending upon the weather & season (shorter days longer nights)
• total cost per month: $314

iow, overall costs will increase, if not skyrocket, implementing UHC (medi for all)... shifting costs around won't make it cheaper, it only fools the ill-informed...

 

I do, next