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

I have NEVER ONCE said that ANYTHING should be free. Please direct your comments to what I've said.

You said we shouldn't help people living miserable lives: "Helping someone live a miserable life seems unacceptable to me, and many others. Perhaps I just believe in the strength and potential of the human spirit more than you do. Men should encourage others to be all they are capable of, not to waste themselves. I think we all have that potential- you obviously don't." And yes, we have people who do NOT have the potential to earn enough money to pay for healthcare. We have millions of them. So do other countries.

Your solution for these people as expressed in this thread has consistently been to REFUSE them needed medical attention, because they didn't earn enough MONEY! That IS punishment and you have stated that they DESERVE that, due to their failure to be making enough money to buy life saving medical attention at the rates demanded by for-profit corporations!!

You said, "It's simple. When you are adult and reasonably fit, you need to stand on your own feet- and feed yourself. If you don't hunt, you don't eat- until the motivation of hunger changes your point of view. That never happens if you are a person without pride, and there is always some fool who is willing to spend the fruits of his labor to feed you while you sit on your ass- so he can tell himself he is "righteous". Such people seem to have to buy "righteousness" to allow them to think it will keep them of hell. No matter how much damage they do to others."

Such people are often called "Christian". Read Matthew 25:31 on. I don't know of any remotely acceptable philosophical foundation that doesn't reach the conclusion that we have a moral responsibility to our fellow man. WE very obviously believe that as a nation.

You're trying to weigh the value of lives on the basis of income! Who does that?

YOU say you have no solution. YOU say we can't.

I'm pointing out that EVERY OTHER first world nation has a solution, and it's costing them FAR less than it is costing us.

I'm saying we CAN!

 

Every other developed nation with government run healthcare rations healthcare based on their government spending budget. That’s immoral.

Americans spend much more on their health than those governments do.

The ways to improve our system include tort reform, granting control of Medicaid to the states, buying private insurance across state lines, promoting high deductible low premium insurance with Health Savings Accounts, privatizing Medicare and Medicaid, forming associations of small businesses and other organizations to include those with pre existing conditions.

The problem with progressives is that they believe that government is the solution to every problem. That thinking has resulted in the US government (taxpayers) spending $22T on the war on poverty for nothing other than to create a multi generational welfare dependency addiction.

 

Obama kept saying that too- and sold us out.

We can, of course. If all of us work and produce, if we manage our resources properly, if we don't regulate ourselves to death or allow mercenaries to steal the fruits of our labor inciting hate and dependency, if we don't set out to cheat others- all of us can All of us can have good medical care. Those who genuinely can't afford it and didn't put themselves in that position can and always have been people we are willing to help. None of that says it's logical to make habitual users out of people who won't contribute.You think they are honest? I had a construction company once building a house for a guy whose feet and legs started swelling bad; I convinced him to get the the ER right away. Good thing; he had a blood issue that needed immediate action. He was hospitalized for a week- bill was $30K. I ask if he had insurance, he said no- but it's all settled. As I was party to the mortgage he had qualified for a month earlier, I knew he didn't have the cash. He told them he was an itinerant tradesman, self employed but broke- and the bill got written off. Of course, it actually got padded into other people's bills. That is a very frequent thing- and as he told me, it's easy, he had done it before. No need to buy insurance.....

You act like you don't know much about things like that- I do. They are happening everyday. And you are paying for them, just as I am. Difference is- I know it and object.

I was hoping to see you suggest some kind of plan that didn't hinge on stealing someone else's money. Guess you came up empty on that one.

You also say I would "deny" people in need. Does that include someone that has already been in need a dozen times before for doing the same stupid things like drugs? I think you believe so.
I'm "in need" of a Lambhorgini too. Since you are stepping up to meet my need, are you denying me? Even if I'm dead broke and can't possibly afford it???
That's not quite what you mean- but the logic is parallel and the gap easily bridged when people think that way.

 

And the sad part is that government is usually the worst solution, the last resort that should only be applied when conditions prevent private industry from doing it.

 

Agreed. But our progressive friends refuse to study history and consequently do not learn from it. Another example is their false claim that Scandinavian countries are socialist. They are not. Their wealth has been created by capitalism which is their Economic system today. They have created a welfare state on steroids paid for by the worker class who derive their incomes from capitalism. Scandinavia has nothing to do with socialism despite what Bernie says. In fact their government officials are continually telling him to stop labeling Scandinavian countries as socialists.

 

In the U.K. 2.5 % of the people living in the country work for the NHS. What is wrong with that picture?

 

NOTHING you have proposed as a solution is specific to those who suffer some addiction.

You're just using the existence of such people as a justification for denying HEALTHCARE to those whose incomes aren't large enough to pay for the healthcare they need. That's just sick!

And, it is ESPECIALLY sick, as they are in serious need of help in getting turned around - something that is well know to be essentially impossible for them to do by themselves.

But, those in need of help with medical bills include those who are working as well as those who are retired of necessity, have medical issues that preclude significant employment, etc.

You want to discard them because they don't make enough income!!!

Your "lambo" comment is just more confirmation that you are sociopathic.

 

OK, THIS again??

Obama wanted a single payer system.

What we got was designed by bipartisan committees in congress. Dems agreed to use the Republican design created during the Clinton administration, because they thought they could get more cooperation from Republicans in that case.

 

Medicare for All will solve the addiction problem ???

What design was that ??? Be careful embarrass yourself now by referring to the Stuart Butler paper.

 

Butler had a lot to do with pushing for market based healthcare systems. He was the one who had the idea of the insurance mandate, for example. His ideas along with Heritage gave rise to Romney care and Obamacare (as Republicans call it).

He was the darling of the right wing. Heritage, The New Republic, Kinsley, Jack Kemp, Reagan Administration, etc., etc.

The heavy campaigning against our healthcare system was a pure partisan move, intended to show that Republicans still had power - even after they lost an election so horribly. McConnell and Boehner (the Republican House and Senate leaders) stated that.

The Republican opposition to our market based healthcare is a TOTAL flip flop on the part of Republicans.

The one positive to come out of this is to demonstrate the stupenous difficulty in creating a market based healthcare system that actually distributes healthcare to citizens who need it. We don't have that today, and there is NO support for moves to attempt to fix it.

In fact, Republicans have had decades to come to terms with this issue, and they are still proposing NOTHING. They're even going so far as to attempt to kill our system over and over again without having a replacement of ANY kind - an ASTOUNDING and totally irresponsible direction.

 

As stated, this is a fair comment.
The question should be, "Medicare for All will mean extending health care to people who are currently not covered by any plan, for whatever reason. Assuming that many of these people are not covered because they cannot afford coverage, their expenses will have to be paid for by others who can. How much will that be?"

You could make the argument that private health care has significant overhead expenses that a socialized system would not have, and that these savings might cover that. This argument is not implausible on the face of it. Britain has fully socialized medicine, which is not obviously qualitatively inferior to America's with respect to its medical outcomes (amenities and waiting times are another question), but costs less than half of America's. So you could argue that if America kept up its corrent high level of spending, it could have socialized medicine with the amenities the British system lacks.

However, I don't think it's correct to assert that extending health coverage to everyone in the US would NOT entail an increase in taxation for the average person, nor that it will not involve effective income redistribution.

Ferociously-capitalist Singapore has what seems to me a pretty good system of medical care which covers everyone via 'forced savings', but even it involves government subsidies for certain things, paid for by taxation. Of course, a ruthlessly capitalist system like Singapore's can afford this.

And the problem with comparing social/political/legal institutions across different countries is that the demographics and resulting cultures are different, and these are generally not reproducible, whereas laws are. (I once had an argument with someone where I simply said that if Sweden's laws and legal institutions were transferred to Nigeria, Nigeria would not become like Sweden. He called me a racist.)

 

Butler was the darling ???

I’ve clearly outlined the reforms necessary to improve the US healthcare system which is the best in the world. First get rid of the abomination aka ObamaCare.

We have Medicaid today and as you should know all ObamaCare did was to expand Medicaid.

All progressives propose is a government take over of healthcare with the consequent rationing of healthcare by bureaucrats and an ever growing federal bureaucracy to do the rationing.

 

I can only assume that you are a person strongly in need of free heath care.

For every person, there is a reason why they are where they are. Sometimes you have to ask many questions to dig down to it.

"Why can't you afford your own care?"
"I don't have a job, or I don't have a job that pays enough".
"Why don't you have a job that pays enough?"
"I don't have a skill".
Why don't you have a skill?"
"I dropped out and didn't finish school".
"Why did you drop out of school, leave yourself uneducated?"
"I didn't like the teachers, they didn't understand me".....

Now that path may be varied, but invariably comes back to the same issue-
"I made a series of poor decisions, and there was always a way out of it and a lack of consequences. Somebody else always saves my ass."

Whine all you like if it makes you happy. There is a vast difference between people, and the person themselves determines what that is. The guy who can't pay his own bills has invariably dodged opportunities all his life, taken the easy way out all his life, procrastinated all his life- secure in the knowledge that if he got in a jamb he couldn't wiggle out of, you would come to the rescue with- somebody else's money.
WHY should he work hard to excel, when he can coast along, have fun, and know you have his back? He may not be motivated, but he's smart enough to know how to use the system and you.

Now stop assuming this applies where it doesn't apply- meaning to people who, for no cause in their control, need our help. That IS a different situation- and you keep insisting it makes no difference.

 

I'm all for a single payer system. YOU are the single payer, the rest of us just use you to solve our problems. To us- your money is "Other People's Money". The free kind.

 

One reason some people oppose making healthcare available to all is that it requires compassion in order to understand the necessity.

 

David, I really don't think people lack the compassion to understand the needs of people- that really isn't the question. Unfortunately, both government and people have never been good at sorting out when their help is serving the society- or degrading it. People aren't by nature responsible and concerned with standing on their own- we will use others and tell ourselves how it's fair and right. The result is a lot of abuse to any system that offers a way to dodge the support and get the benefits. Now I wish that were not true, but it is. It is true that a healthy nation is a better nation, no argument against that. It is how we get there that is in question- and of course, who pays for those who aren't paying. IF you pay to fix a problem for somebody else once, and they return to productivity- no argument there either. However, paying over and over for the same thing with no good outcome is another thing. Having dealt with drug addiction programs for example, teaches you that helping can often be the wrong thing to do. IF we expect the general population to support the idea of universal care- we should be damn sure we aren't wasting their money. So far, I've not seen any proposal from anyone that shows any concern at all for that.

If a plan bankrupts a society in "helping" people- they soon won't be able to help anybody, including themselves. More than anything else, we need to fix the factors that make our health care the world's most expensive. It's not our insurance premiums that cause your hospital to bill you $15 for a ten-cent Tylenol. It's the charge for the Tylenol that causes the insurance premiums to be unaffordable. Fix the problems that explode the costs, and you have fixed most every aspect of the problem. Try getting anyone in congress to discuss that, and you get- nothing.

 

Plus we have Medicaid (which has hugely expanded) for those that need a social safety net.

Progressives do not like those who advocate personal responsibility.

 

Plus we have Medicaid (which has hugely expanded) for those that need a social safety net.

Progressives do not like those who advocate personal responsibility.

 

There is NO CHANCE that I would have suggested it was racism.

For one thing, making laws doesn't create instant education or ensure economic success. For another, establishing a set of laws doesn't convey an understanding of how the system is intended to work.

Democracy requires that people have certain beliefs and expectations. Today, the top levels of our government have found that clearly intollerable behavior is either not actually against the law or incredibly difficult to enforce. Our set of laws doesn't even ensure our OWN behavior, let alone the behavior of some country to which we might transfer our laws. We don't suggest our system to other countries, because we have known for a long, long time that our system is too easy to run as a dictatorship.

Our success in government continues IF we the people have the fortitude to make it work as intended - not because we have the laws to ensure that it works.

 

Bull.

EVERY progressive advocates for personal responsibility.

 

Thanks for the comedy. The entire Progressive agenda is based on identity politics which basically tells people that they are not responsible for their status and that the only way they can move up is to vote Democrat because help from the Democratic Party is the only they can be successful.

 

Progressives claim that the US is a dictatorship yet refuse to condemn an actual dictatorship - the totalitarian single party communist natio of China.

 

The catch here is that healthcare is like food. If you can't afford it, you deteriorate and the possibility of investing in the future (education, savings, productive work, etc.) is decreased or lost. And, there isn't an alternative product..

The Lambo you want is not like that. If you can't afford it, it doesn't change your ability to increase your education/training, work to afford it or to find other solutions to make you happy. Capitalism works GREAT for stuff like this. And, if you have a good enough source of money it works OK for healthcare and food, too - though there are problems specific to healthcare, as it is a required product. If you need an appendectomy, there isn't some other product that will make you happy and your life is at stake - highly important factor in economics.

So, we give help to those who can't afford the things that block people from moving forward. And, we do that because capitalism just won't do that.

 

Low income people have Medicaid. There is you government run safety net healthcare system. All this is made possible by capitalism as is the huge welfare states of the Scandinavian countries funded by taxing the working class whose income comes from capitalism. It is the wealth created by capitalism which makes the welfare state possible.

 

Right! You made another assumption!!!

You make assumptions by the dozen and so far I don't see even ONE that has been more than ridiculous.