Medicare for all???

yep, the same tax per dollar as the rich guy is exactly what we want

how much do they spend per dollar on healthcare costs today? ... how much does the average worker?

 

Which was exactly my point.

The root agenda of the left us always making one group of people pay for another group.

Always.

 

Technically, it's always the attending physician that decides on the urgency, backed up by diagnostics and supporting evidence.

 

Medicare pays faster than private. It's one of the problems it has with fraud. It okays service then asks questions.

 

That's the public option.

 

Which isnt working.

 

So in other words.

Let the poor die.

Got it.

At least we know where you stand.

 

So what is preventing you from going off the grid completely?

 

LOL....because it was NEVER implemented!

They decided to hold back on that because they were afraid they would not be able to pass the ACA with it.

 

yes... the me me me generation is over.... time for us make healthcare a right

the ironic thing is, it will cost the country less to do so as a whole then it does now

 

you mean it's not working as conservatives would not allow it


"Obama, GOP's Snowe work on health care compromise"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/health.care.compromise/

"The compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by Obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by Snowe, the sources said."

 

we could make a new branch of the military, one to fight for Americans health

call it the health force - lol - then we could budget it with the military budget

and anyone against budgeting it would be classified as anti-military

 

And once again, we will have to have the insurance mandate under this public option.

You either have private insurance, or public, but you have to have it, otherwise it won't work. This is the problem with trying to get the public to understand how using "insurance" as a vehicle for healthcare is not the most streamlined option on the table, BUT it is a start to hopefully educate the public. Just like with the ACA, there was a lot of resistance to it, but eventually folks started seeing its advantages.

 

The unions were the ones pushing for employer paid health care insurance, it was the union's collective bargaining which sealed the deals.

You make it sound like employer paid insurance was something the employers created to cheat the employees.

 

nope, not at all, just like medicare - you just have that if you want it - you can still choose private

people can choose to go without, but just like the middle east wars, they still gonna have to pay the tax

now we could let them voluntarily submit the information of private care on their tax return for some kinda refund

 

yep, 40 hour work weeks with overtime pay, paid vacation, helping cover costs of insurance, better working conditions, job security.... the list goes on

there has to be a balance, right now it's shifting towards the corps more than the employees

 

That's my point; you have to have one or the other, but this me-me-me mentality is what gets in the way.

 

Any insurace you choose to buy while we have Medicare for all sould be suplimental only, as most stuff would be covered. Lost income, extended in-home care, etc., would not be covered so if you want that you could buy that coverage. This is how Medicare works today.

Such coverage would be far cheaper than the same policy you have today, because the vast majority of it would already be covered.

So, if you contract cancer your rates shoot up?

You haven't been listening to what I and many others "want". Healthcare is a requirement of the human conditions - like food, water, shelter. Denying these essentials based on income is not a tollerable direction.

Yest - those receiving significant income will pay more than those with less income. After all, those with little income often need help with food, healthcare, etc.

Yes - I did that. I lived in an area where the public school system was highly vocationally oriented - and they did a good job of that. Unfortunately, doing a good job of that AND having a satisfactory college track cost too much, so they didn't provie that.

Other like minded parents didn't have that option. Private highschool costs more than $20K per school year here, so almost all parents could not afford that direction.

I would have preferred to have that highschool have a college track. The wider exposure available to my kids and the other kids there would have been a more full education.

Having money always gives options the majority do not have. You're supposed to be glad to be in that situation and helpful and considerate toward those who are not. America is much better off when we're all healthy and well educated.

 

OK - I know what you're saying.

What I was referring to is that if you show up at an ER you'll have to make it past triage to see an attendin physician.

And, hospitals do set the policy.

 

I'm saying it is a negotiation - a negotiation that almost alwsys starts with demand for higher wages.

And, when corporations and public employers claw back benefits that were given instead of wages, I don't believe it was a plot put in place years before. But, it IS out and out theft.

 

We only buy private insurance if we want it for personal reasons.

There are small tax concessions above a certain income if you take out comprehensive private insurance, but it's not compulsory. We've personally always chosen to pay the extra tax, rather than be ripped off by the private system.

 

Yeah - we hear this BS argument trotted out from time to time. Big Pharma does not do that much research in to curing diseases - they are far more interested in treating the symptoms because that is where the money is. Much of the innovative new stuff comes not from their own research but from buying smaller companies -

None of these small companies are getting any benefit from extortion rate drug prices - and regulation that allows that extortion to continue. So this money is not subsidizing the vast majority of innovative research.

 

Yep, that's how it works.

 

Spouting over used rhetoric of doom and gloom may not be as convincing as you think.

 

1) Hospital treatment is not predicated on your ability to pay. It's predicated on your medical requirements.

2) Doctors are not paid a pittance. VERY far from it. And our public hospitals are the best in the country. Our private hospitals suffer from underfunding, because they're dependent upon profit. Poorer infection control, poorer patient to staff ratios, tendency to purchase used equipment (from our public hospitals, which are constantly updating), etc etc.

3) You don't have to use the public system. You can pay through the nose for inferior care at a private hospital, if your own doctor and a private bathroom are more important to you than your health. So yes, you can elect not to participate. Plenty of people do, though why they do that when they've already paid for it is a mystery.