Medicare for all???

Cuz you ain't

 

So $2100 per household that is working and paying payroll taxes, supporting their own healthcare and that of the non-working households.

 

There are countries with no income tax and free healthcare.

 

There are many forms of tax

 

The price of a product should not depend on a person's wealth. I can just see someone at the checkout counter pulling out their notarized balance sheet so the clerk can figure out how to price the toaster being purchased. So yes I should pay the same as anyone else.

 

I agree.
If this is going to be wonderful and save so much money, everyone should just be happy to mail their much lower principle into the government and enjoy their savings.

In reality, most supporters want it to be an income based payment so that those who earn more are forced to pay more, for the same service. They don't just want savings, they want subsidized as well.

Further, they feel that physicians should bear the brunt by having their incomes reduced to help pay for everyone, but they are not offering to have their incomes reduced to achieve this goal.
They only expect their costs to decrease.

 

I am certain he will not exclude aliens, illegal or legal.

 

Because I refuse to be exercised by you in no way makes me wrong.

 

Nearly all those countries with universal health care have a VAT (value added tax) which is not a tax on income but rather a separate tax based on goods or services purchased. It's a consumer tax similar to a sales tax but added indirectly. A VAT traces the progress of a product from initial concept to final transaction, taxing all of the individuals who have a hand in the transaction based on the value that they have added to the product. The VAT is different in every country.

Other countries cut costs by cutting out unnecessary over-priced middlemen. In other words they use common business sense. Here, we allow private health insurance corporation to rake us over the coals on costs while providing terribly unreliable and at times sub-par healthcare. Many insurance plans here limit which doctors we can choose, limit what medical needs we may or may not be entitled to (no matter what our doctors say), and very often deny needed medical care completely which leads to thousands of senseless deaths and tens of millions more “merely” disabled, bankrupted and terrorized innocent Americans.

Other countries manage to provide equal care for everyone from cradle to grave at half the price per person (or less) and one-third less as a % of GDP than we do. Maybe we should learn something from them? Our uniquely American profit-before-people health coverage model is killing, disabling, bankrupting and terrorizing our people, making our businesses unable to compete in global markets, and destroying our economy as a whole.

In order to be able to make universal health care workable, cost containment is essential. This means that pharmaceutical companies, laboratories, X-ray and diagnostic testing must all be regulated and profiteering stopped. Will that happen in the US in our lifetime? I doubt it.

 

WHOOSH

 

Oh yes there is. When my two daughters were in foster care and subject to coverage under Medicaid, we had to wait 4 months to see a specialist. We inquired about the wait if we used private insurance, and it was 2 weeks. Then the service we received from a provider that would accept medicaid was sub-standard at best.

I don't think people advocating for single payer are being honest about the differences in the systems.

 

We need to start being honest about these conversations.

The drive for single payer or government funded healthcare is this. People that can't or won't pay for their own healthcare should be afforded coverage on the backs of everybody else.

It is the same line in repeat by the progressive left. Everything boils down to that simple premise. Even the push for social programs.

 

Yes, but there is a significant enough proportion of the populace who rarely see doctors, to balance it out. If you've paid in $2100k, and used only $100 of that (which is not unrealistic, for a 'doctor averse' family), the system survives.

 

1) Public health doesn't make you wait for medically urgent care ... ever. If the wait was four months, it's because the condition allowed for that.

2) On the contrary, it's those oppsed to it who can't seem to grasp it.

 

Sure, but the benefit is that they can no longer use the excuse (medical bills!) to explain their poverty. That's significant.

 

So many people are "poor" following a major illness due to the reality that they cannot work. That would not change.

 

Who is going to be doctor averse when all medical care or coverage is free?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But either way it is the government that will decide what is medically urgent and which treatments aren't.

 

What? Are you suggesting that people ENJOY going to the doctor?

I know people who haven't seen a doctor in 30+ years.

 

No, you are wrong. All waiting is triaged. Life-threatening is immediate, always.

The Govt 'decides' by triaging!!!! They treat the most urgent first, instead of treating bad knees in the same time frame as heart surgery - like the private sector does. How is this so difficult to grasp?

 

This was a case of corporations finding that they could win by conceding on benefits rather than salary. They couldlmake deals with insurance companies, leveraging the fact that employees are at least healthy at the time of employment and will be fired when they aren't.

We have seen that for many decades in public employment, too. Instead of offering teachers better wages, they promised shorter careers and good retirement - stuff that would be paid by FUTURE administrations, thus not on the budget at the time. (Of course, then the politicians pointed to those benefits as being large, so they took them back - thus renegging on the deal they made.)

 

Conservatives believe that, too, so this is worth discussing.

Conservatives propose that by less spending on social safetynet features, those with money would donate more to the specific individuals or local organizations that would more effectively solve the problem.

In my view:
- there aren't enough personal donations to provide an adequate level of service. Furthermore, when taxes were cut in the past (such as the Bush and Obama tax cuts for the wealthy) it didn't show any increase in donations to social safetynet features. There WERE more donations, but increases were centered in the arts.

- our nation and our states need to supply a known level of support in an organized way, including evauating the actual need. It isn't necessary for the government to provide all the need - today, federal, state and local governmnet contracts with providers in some cases. Not for profit organizations do not have the size and coverage to accomplish this distribution. Even Catholic Charities can not do that, though they certainly provide a lot of support.

 

You ain't starving, cold and poor.
But you want the handout.
Why is that?

 

I believe America is better and better off when all our people have food, clothing, shelter and healthcare.

The citizens of other countries have that.

Why are we not as good as that? What's wrong with OUR people having that?

 

You believe you can get others to subsidize you, so you can spend your money on things you like instead of things you need, while they spend their money on you