Is healthcare a "right?"

Small hint, I am likely not the 'man' you are looking for.....

 

that's right.

 

Medicare, along with Social Security, are funded on payroll taxes paid by previous generations..... if you paid into it today, you reap the benefits in the future.

Most of us call it a Ponzi scheme. The Government likes to call it a 'social safety net'.

Medicare for all, as an expanded program, involves the government in people's healthcare, as a payment mechanism. Unfortunately, some people also believe that the actual prices of healthcare will go down by forcing everyone to use a centralized payment system. Reality is, it does not effect the costs, it effects what providers are paid. As an example, if it costs a provider $100 to treat a patient, and MFA (Medicare for all) only reimburses $75, then the provider has incurred a loss. If the provider has other patients who are not part of MFA, they can adjust their rates to absorb some of that loss. If ALL patients are on MFA, there is no recovering the cost.....

Additional issues are what we have seen happen in the UK, where individuals were threatened with penalties, if they sought healthcare outside of the system, regardless if they paid for it out of their pocket.

 

?? I think you are quite confused.

Medicaid is administered by the states, not by the federal government. And, it's not operated by a party.

If you want your state to do a better job of Medicaid, talk to your state government.

 

This is absolutely and totally false!!!

Repealing the ACA would NOT take us back to what we hadd before. What we had before included large amounts of regulation. That regulation was either subsumed or replacedd by the ACA.

If the ACA had been deleted as Republicans worked hard to do, it would NOT have caused deleted legislation to magically comee back into existence.

Where did you get this NUTTY idea that killing the ACA would bring back the previoius system of healthcare coverage?

Seriously. I really want to know.

 

True - IF we can not vote or get accurate information.

But, we CAN vote. And, we DO get accurate information from our press and other sources.

As the Washington Post says, "Democracy dies in darkness".

 

As long as We The People (all inclusive) continue to permit the existence of a duopoly, we will always be voting for the lesser of evils, commonly known as pond scum.

 

Our government isn't set up to allow multiple parties.

I think the more serious issue is that our system allows literally anyone to run for the presidency.

Thus, we get candidates that have absolutely NO clue how government works.

And, I don't just mean Trump, though he is clearly the most serous example. We've had Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and others stir the pot.

 

It wouldn't take much to adjust to a multi-party system, we're already part way there.

And I think it is a very positive thing that our system allows almost anyone to run for the presidency. If it did not do so, only the corrupt, divisive, and elitists would be leading this country. Oh, wait.....

 

Don't understand the question. We had a system before Obamacare, and repealing the mandate did not result in abolition of the system.

 

I never got this "darkness" business? Who is trying to turn out what lights? Has Trump threatened to shutter the Washington Post like an uncontrolled Nazi?

Too much drama.

 

I don't agree even slightly.

The real problem concerning mulitple parties comes in the legislative branch.

We have two caucuses and two caucuses only. "Libertrians" and "independents" are incrediibly rare and simply have to choose which caucus they will join of they want ANY clout in congress - such as having a seat on ANY committee, being part of ANY negottiation, etc.

Things are far more fluid in a parliamentary system where representatives can join different groups without having their influence eliminated.

That and the fact that the president is so powerful are reasons the USA does NOT recommend our system to any other country forming a new government. That is, these are flaws in our system.

 

NO! Republicans voted 50 times to kill the ACA - NOT just the mandate.

And, in either case, the Republican proposed action would NOT have resurected the pre-ACA system.

The pre-ACA system was DELETED. And, killing the ACA would NOT have brought back that ]regulation of the past system.

More recently, Republicans wanted to delete the ACA with the promise that they would then create something to takee its place!!!

How STUPID do they think Americans are???

They've had DECADES to come up with a healthcare proposal and the onlly solution they had was one under Clinton that depended on the mandate - which they now HATE!!

 

Darkness refers to the end of available information on what's really going on.

It's the end of the free and independent press, with significant access.

 

So, essentially you are saying that the sole purpose of the current system is to make money for the doctors and all accompanying business people.
I respect your honesty, but that is exactly why we need universal care, we need to stop that killing machine.
I hope more and more people will come to that conclusion.

 

Answer my questions please, be specific.....

Why would you go bankrupt?

Why would you lose all your money?

 

Both Medicare and Medicaid has $60 to $90 billion fraud for each, if they can't contain it with as few using the system now what makes you think it can with hundreds of millions of new people in the system? When anyone pushes for Medicare/Medicaid for all I think of the TV commercials pushing "pain relieving" braces and penile pumps billable to Medicare/Medicaid. They're robbing the taxpayers blind on those things. Medicare/Medicaid for all would push their profits into the stratosphere.

 

The largest Medicaid fraud is people using each other's Medicaid cards.

With Medicare for all, there would be no such fraud, as people wouldn't need to go to that extreme to get healthcare.

 

If medical bills gets greater then my assets, then I have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
If something happens that require expensive treatment and insurance refuses to pay then hospitals and doctors will go after me.

 

Medicare fraud is the claiming of Medicare health care reimbursement to which the claimant is not entitled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_fraud)
If everyone is entitled, then there will be no Medicare fraud, the problem is solved.
Again, there is NO SINGLE legitimate ARGUMENTS against Medicare for all has ever been presented.

 

News flash, the claimant is the Health Care provider not the patient. Medicare does not send money to those enrolled in Medicare, it remits money to providers claiming to have treated them. If more people have Medicare it simply provides a larger group for the fraudsters to pick from.

I personally know several people who have received those advertised back braces in the mail. They did not order or request them, yet if they keep them Medicare is billed something like $1,500 for them.

 

Because you don't understand freedom and liberty.

Your school menus aren't important to men because we make sure to feed our own children. That's what we work for.

Lefties.... not so much. You need schools to feed your children because... well... you can't.