Ending Medicare as we know it.

He's insinuating that he's wealthy. If that's true that's all well and good...for him. Not many people are so obviously that is NOT how public policy should be made

 

Going back to home health.... there are so many advantages to it. You may only see them coming once a week, but there is a lot going on behind the scenes. For instance, if a person is on home health, they can receive medication refills without having to find a way to the doctor. Home health can track those blood pressures and call the Dr if something is off. Home health can draw blood if you get ill and are too weak to come in to the Dr office. So many things go on besides that weekly home visit....



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

It's not pertinent at all. I was simply asked what my personal plans are, so I said I'm not worried about it. Like asking where I plan to live when I'm retired. I plan to live in my house. The one I saved and worked hard for.

You can ask what that has to do with housing homeless, and I'd say it doesn't have a damn thing to do with them. They had their life to work hard, and decided to take that road less traveled.

 

It only makes sense to approach your direct environment in that manner, but i think you fail to see the larger picture.

There are individuals out there that create relatively abstract conceptual models on how to effectively supply the needs of most people, and I'm hammering this to merely point out that overall economic and sociopolitical models are much better equipped to handle society's most trouble questions.

That said, I look forward to a neoclassical economic look at how to best supply healthcare to the nation, and once we have an efficient system in place, that excess can be spent on those that may happen to benefit less.

The goal should be the wealth and prosperity of all, a utilitarian model. I think your basic appeals to emotion, while may convince you and some others, clouds your overall judgement

 

we can't all pick good parents.
Bet you had cable, smart phones and computers while they didn't have insurance.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, public policy should always benefit you, to the detriment of others.

 

Did Mother Jones mention it was a bipartisan plan proposed in 1997 by Senator Breaux (D)?

Probably not....and I'm guessing you didn't actually read the plan either.

Yes, Medicare has OPM instead of a human resources department.

Medicare has the GAO to conduct audits instead of paying for its own audits or having its own in-house auditors.

The Treasury Department cuts the checks for Medicare.

The Treasury Department manages the HI and SMI Trust Funds so Medicare does't have to spend the money for that.

The IRS collects and enforces the FICA payroll tax so Medicare doesn't have to pay for that.

And you didn't include the 16 separate MACs that manage Medicare resources.

So, other than manage a small number of claims, what exactly does Medicare do?

 

Public policy should benefit the majority of people. The majority of Americans are of the working class. They cannot afford things like you can. And just for your reference. I went several years without insurance. I did not have cable. I had a safe link phone that didn't even have so much as a camera (this is the phone I still have. I USE a smart phone that belongs to my father in law to do things online, but I do not own a smart phone.) I do not own a computer. If I cannot borrow one from a family member and need to get online I go to the public library. I make a hell of a lot of sacrifices to provide for my family and for you to come in here running you mouth and insinuating that anyone who doesn't have as much money as you is doing something wrong is pretty ignorant. I work every day. Do you? When I get home, my children have home cooked meals every night. I cook them. Do you? After dinner I help them with home work, clean the dishes (by hand), clean up the house, and if I am lucky I have just enough time to sit down and find out how their day was. I work my ass off and so does my husband. Do you? BTW there are WAY more important things than money when you have a family.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Who are you referring to?

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Yes, life is hard, and children make it harder. You knew this going in when you decided to have children. This includes needing money to pay for all the things that children need. Do children need healthcare insurance? If that's a yes, then that goes into the budget.

You say you have children, so that's more than one child. This adds quite a bit to the amount of money you need to make that work. The price of raising a child for 18 years is generally around 250k per kid. multiply that by the amount of kids, and that is what it costs. You can, of course, trim some of the fat off, but not all that much. Then there is the cost of sending them to university, if that's what you can afford. That raises things rather substantially.

You add all that up, and then tell me there are more important things than money when you have a family. There certainly are important things, but if you can't even afford health care for them, then you can't afford them.

That's just economic reality.

 

Actually, I'm not wealthy. Let's just say that I have had a hand in helping many of the people who work in the health care profession.

It's one of the reasons I take the particular tact that I do. I know them, and they are not wealthy, either. They have bills to pay, but people who want their services for free don't care about them and the fact that they are just like everybody else trying to make the ends meet so they can raise families. They only care about themselves.

free free free! that's what so many here want, and that demand for free stuff angers me. You don't know how hard the job is, or the real dangers that it encompasses. You just want free.

 

Social Security and Medicare has separate Trust Funds.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

 

Well workers just went along with the plan and paid their taxes. I think the big zit on the face is the fact that healthcare has risen in cost astronomically. Every old person that dies a slow death will cost 1 to 2 million in health costs to the system.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but the politicians maybe do. They make it tough to survive and the people that can do the ones that can't are not needed to the machine.

 

One thing is certain, old farts vote and politicians know this.

 

Okay. I'll ask the pertinent question again:

Would this man ever lie to you?

 

Momentum has us moving to "single-payer" or "Medicare for All". Every other developed country has moved to such a system and many have healthcare quality that is competitive with ours although we spend about twice as much for it.

Instead of our healthcare costing 80-100% more than those other developed countries, imagine if we transitioned to a national system too but spent just 30% more than the others. We could improve healthcare and still save "bigly".

 

Bigly!

 

But then, what about the damage to our GDP from the reduction of revenue taken in by insurance companies???

 

Is it your argument that keeping the GDP up to some level is worth any hardship and deprivation the public may experience in seeking that goal?

I think your question is great in that it illustrates very well our need to work out and establish a new economic system that resolves such contradictions that are currently being worked out to the detriment of the public under capitalism.

Also, the mods may take note that you are changing the subject of the thread.

But to answer your question, I believe that a national healthcare system will boost the economy by reducing the drag caused by excessive and unnecessary expenses that don't serve the public or the country.

 

The medical sector is profit-motivated, but thanks to the AMA and the medical hierarchy, it has remained largely self-regulated with little government interference. The fact that medical care is very often a necessity increases the opportunity for exploitation.

 

How do other developed countries deal with such problems in their systems? They seem to have solved them to a large extent.

 

I was merely being facetious, pointing out underlying factors for resistance to a single-payer system. An incredible number of voters are apparently more worried about our economy than they are about the general health and well-being of our citizens.

 

Assuredly, by socialized medicine, without profit incentivization. (Socialization is a dirty word in the U.S., as is cure; long-term treatment of supposedly "chronic" conditions is much more profitable.)

 

Repealing Obamacare would in itself hurt Medicare:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...financial-condition-improves-on-reduced-costs

 

There is no money in the trust funds, just US debt instruments.
Your money goes into the general fund and is spent.

 

There is no "money" in your bank account either. It's a ledger entry.

But tell me, since it is necessary to invest the $2.8 trillion that has purchased those debt instruments, what would you suggest it be invested in?

 

What will happen is that ObamaCare (nationalized RomneyCare) will become known as Trump®Care.

If the Novelty Act in the White House can get Ryan, McConnell, and the other Big Pharma lackeys in Congress to allow Medicare to negotiate Rx prices, so much the better.