Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost added $32.6 trillion

a reply to: avgguy

And who pays for the research? The company developing the drug/equipment. The same company selling the product. So why would they sell it for less to one market and more to another?

a reply to: atsgrounded

Taxes WOULD GO UP and PREMIUMS WOULD DISAPPEAR. And a side effect would be everyone is covered and pay into it when purchases are made.

I've asked you several times how you figure that. I've said many times I wouldn't be opposed should someone tell me how it could happen without taxes going sky high. Because as you know, taxes are percentage based. Meaning some of us would have to pay more.

All you've given me is "look at Canada".

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I believe that health insurance is also a scam.

But for the record, you're just saying 500,000 people can go kick rocks?

Nope, I said they should find work that isn't scamming people.

For the record do you believe health insurance is or isn't a scam?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

For the record do you believe health insurance is or isn't a scam?

No, I think they're the ones taking the brunt of peoples frustration.

Do you think we knew before all the advancements in the 40's it would cost this much?

Do the providers get no blame?

And you talk like the employees are complicit. Never take a job to make ends meet?

Research done by Mercatus Center, located on the George Mason University campus in Virginia.

The Mercatus Center was founded and is funded by the Koch brothers.

Consider what the Koch brothers interests are when reading this study. Consider how they might want the opinion skewed and are willing to pay around a $100 million to the university and the research center.

If they are willing to fork over such an amount of money, imagine how much they stand to make or save by distorting public opinion. Crazy money.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: avgguy

And who pays for the research? The company developing the drug/equipment. The same company selling the product. So why would they sell it for less to one market and more to another?

Non profit means everything is paid for-and yes that includes R+D. The profit that isn't collected lowers cost.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you go to withdraw some money from the bank but the bank denies your withdrawal request. Then let's say they take that money you were denied, pocket it, and count it as profit. Would you consider that a scam?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Can't prove what a health system that doesn't exist will look like. All I can say is look at other countries. And the reason Canada comes up is because they are a very close example of the US's demo's.

Again Taxes will go up-how much? That is the question. Without single payer negotiation (like Canada) for cost of medical care and pharma any new system will fail. No premiums will very well offset the taxes. Everyone pays in.

If the system was set up like Canada's I can only imagine the costs would be similar.

a reply to: Edumakated

Competition does not lower costs of medical. Expenses and costs of having technology available is causing the major increases in healthcare. Doctors want the technicians and therapists to keep working, they want to support the people in the medical industry. That leads to people going to tests and procedures they do not need. Doctors are not all evil, in fact the majority of them that send people to unneeded testing are just trying to make sure everyone in healthcare keeps working. We need jobs producing things, factories that employ the people. Too many people work for healthcare and need their paychecks. It is not just healthcare, it is nursing homes and also all the overpriced gadgets the doctors provide. A person who is working a real job does not need physical therapy for six weeks, they could go to one training session and get instructions on what they can and can't do and what they should be doing. If you have a disability, it is hard to even get to the therapist, then they make you do exercises. Then when you get home, you wind up getting hurt from a fall. I have seen this happen to older people over the years, just going back and forth to the therapy appointment was enough therapy.

We need a socialized medicine base, but cosmetic stuff and some other stuff should not be covered. If a person uses the emergency room, a copayment could be charged if it is not an emergency and we will need to make some more urgent care facilities for people around the country to work with people's doctors.

Going to a doctor is a pain, it seems that with ours, you have to make an appointment a week after minimum to see them. By then you are either better or a lot worse. Our present system is flawed beyond belief. You only see the doctor for a short time and do not have enough time to discuss things with them. If you talk to the doctor about pidly crap for a few minutes, you usually say something pertinent, like you are pissed that you haven't been able to go berry picking because your legs are sore...a sign that thrombosis might have caused you to get clots in your lungs which is why you are there to get some help for your bad cough with no signs of a virus. The main problem is not enough time to communicate. But then again, would socialized medicine actually get you more time? Maybe since bringing in money to the doctor's office with more possible patients they see in a day is important in this present flawed system.

a reply to: Kharron

Here you go:
Koch-Funded Hit Piece Backfires: Shows Medicare for All Would Save 'Whopping $2 Trillion' Over Ten Years While Covering Everybody

But as Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project notes—though absent or buried in much of the initial reporting—even the Koch brothers' numbers, which Sanders says are vastly inflated, demonstrate that the "U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket healthcare expenses" while saving "a whopping $2 trillion" in the process.*

"At first glance, it is strange that the Mercatus center...would publish a report this positive about Medicare for All," writes Bruenig.

"The claim that 'even the Koch organizations say it will save money while covering everyone' provides a useful bit of rhetoric for proponents of the policy," he adds. "But the real game here for Mercatus is to bury the money-saving finding in the report's tables while headlining the incomprehensibly large $32.6 trillion number in order to trick dim reporters into splashing that number everywhere and freaking out."

The weekends little gem. Persons 25 year old daughter pregnant again from some random guy from Chicago that she met at the lake. Same as the first 2 children. You would think she would get a license number. Anyway too tired and sick to do anything so 2 days in the hospital. Guess who gets the bill. Not to mention the money she gets instead of child support.

25 Third kid on the way and no means of support. Great life ahead.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you go to withdraw some money from the bank but the bank denies your withdrawal request. Then let's say they take that money you were denied, pocket it, and count it as profit. Would you consider that a scam?

I get it, there are examples of negatives on each side of the argument. Remember the infant in England who got denied treatment?

That said, in the OP I said I would not be opposed to change as long as I don't pay more taxes (less how much health insurance costs are) than I do currently.

So, after reiterating that again, I'm not going to jump to hyperbole and state that health insurance companies are a scam.

Are we in a bad spot? Yes. Is it all their fault? No.

Finding one party to pin blame won't fix this.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Insurance companies take money from people with the expectation that they'll have access to that money when they need it. At the same time insurance companies only make a profit when they're able to deny people access to that money.

There's literally nothing else to their business model.

What part of that isn't a scam?

Also, I don't see anyone getting to pin this on one party. The DNC had the opportunity to fix the healthcare system in 09-10 but they opted to go with a system that was the most advantageous for the insurance companies.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for that link, news certainly caught on quickly.

So from now on, if I see Mercatus Center on anything, it can safely go into the lies and propaganda mental category.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Insurance companies take money from people with the expectation that they'll have access to that money when they need it. At the same time insurance companies only make a profit when they're able to deny people access to that money. There's literally nothing else to their business model. What part of that isn't a scam?

No, they don't make money by denying people. They make money by making sure that premiums are higher than payouts. Doesn't necessarily mean that they have to deny coverage. It's quite literally in your contract what you're covered for.

Why should it be all or none? It should be choice. That is what the ACA fooled you into but it was really just a place for the government to 'sell' you insurance from the same companies you could call yourself. Not Federal Insurance. It was a marketplace and a tax package.

Healthcare is NOT a right. Some people take care of themselves. Some don't. Some want insurance. Some don't. However, thinking somehow that handing over healthcare to the government is a good thing so they can tax you more makes no sense. At all. These are the same people who ran the VA into the ground...

Open State borders. Allow competition. Stop Pharma and Big Insurance subsidies. People should have a choice.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Question - Is Bernie Sanders Living in the REAL WORLD ?

Answer - # No !

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You should think that's how it works, but no. Like I said before, I worked in a pharmacy. Many times a day I would have to deal "Prior Authorizations." What this means is that even though the drug is covered by the plan the insurance company needs to make sure it's necessary before they pay for it.

Ultimately someone who has no medical experience is deciding whether or not a doctor knows what they're doing.

In many cases the drug company will opt for a similar drug that's cheaper but less effective and with more side effects. That said there were also many times the insurance company just outright denied a drug without offering a substitute.

a reply to: matafuchs

If our health care system was our internet provider we would have fired it along time ago.

But we can't. There is no competition/choice and no pricing oversight. And cost will not come down until they are forced to.

You're all arguing about the wrong things as usual.

What do we want? We want everyone to be able to afford healthcare when they need it and to get it when they need it, especially if they're already paying insurance.

That's it.

People go broke in the USA every year because that's the only way they can afford their care.
People die every year because they can't afford adequate medical care.
People fight insurance companies every year, because they're denied even for valid care.

Even if you did a universal care/Medicare thing whatever you want to call it. People would still buy their own insurance, because it would be better that way.

Also nothing is free. Free healthcare, means that that's where people want their tax monies to go.

Republicans have had 2 years to replace or improve Obama care or offer some kind of alternative or do anything to drive down healthcare costs or cover everyone that needs it and we've got.. basically nothing.