Fox & Friends Poll Designed to Discredit Medicare for All Explodes in Their Face

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: FyreByrd

Look at the boon to smallish business - no need to provide health care (beyond the added business part of medicare) no Worker's Comp insurance. Those two alone would increase the viability of small business in this country.

No more need for medical coverage on auto and home policies either... nor any need really for anyone to claim or sue for medical expenses in any situation. I would think that would go for medical malpractice insurance as well -- at least for recovering any medical expenses to correct the malpractice.

How many middle men and paper pushers would that also eliminate? And therefore further reduce costs...

An added benefit (hopefully) would be that more people could afford to stay home and take care of the elderly and disabled, thus saving those costs as well. I'd actually like to see something done towards that end regardless. The more folks we can keep at home, rather than institutionalized, the better for everyone.

Wonderful points ALL.

Thank you.

Also, I'd rather pay my 'medical dollar' to a not for profit organization. Once profit is in the equation - dog-eat-dog capitalism brings out the very worse in people and organizations.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CharlesT

Being rather selfish and self serving, are you?

I work for my own money and support my own family... I'm not exchanging my precious time, blood, sweat, and tears to support people I owe no responsibility to.

You already do. Where do you think your health insurance payments disappear to, a void? No, they get pooled, then pulled and used to pay another policy holder's claims.

Seriously dude. You're already playing a socialist game here, you just don't realize it.

It’s not a socialist game. My employer goes through a process to select the best private insurance company for our pool. There is no selection process when it comes to socialized health care. We need to end the cronyism and create a true free market health care system. We need to do the opposite of socialized medicine. We haven’t had a free market health system in over a half of a century.

LOL - your employer selects the 'cheapest' option that meets minumum requirement and then you pay the most of the cost however your employer can swing.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: FyreByrd


How much does America spend on "healthcare" now? $33 Trillion over 10 years might be a bargain?

Edit: I see in 2015, it was $3.2 Trillion.
Source: www.forbes.com...

Agreed; it would be a bargain, and wildly optimistic at best. The 2016 spending was 3.3 trillion. Do we not anticipate inflation? Maybe 4% annually so wages rise in sync GDP? Enrollment is going to be stagnant too?

Come on dummies! I guarantee 33 trillion will look more like 50 trillion if you ever find a way out of the land of make-believe.

originally posted by: carewemust
The key thing I want is for everyone who thinks Medicare is great, be able to buy into it. Don't make it a free hand-out. Medicaid is a free. But for those who think Medicare is better than private insurance, and can afford the $100 to $400 a month buy-in premium, let them give it a go.

You told you Medicare was free. It is one of the employment taxes that you and your employer pay into the system every pay period.

The system is in place and works efficiently. Would payments go up? Yes, on both you and your employer. It was under Reagan that Social Security and Medicare payments went up.

But you know this - your working right - paying your way - right.

originally posted by: CharlesT
theintercept.com...

But what the Associated Press headline fails to announce is a much more sanguine update: The report, by Senior Research Strategist Charles Blahous, found that under Sanders’s plan, overall health costs would go down, and wages would go up.

The study, which came out of the Koch-funded research center, was initially provided to the AP with a cost estimate that exceeded previous ones by an incredible $3 trillion — a massive error that was found and corrected by Sanders’s staff when approached by AP for comment.

Blahous’s paper, titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending.

Open the link and read the article if you dare to be open minded.

Seriously? 3.3 trillion in spending in 2016 on the HHS website. You are trying to convince me that of 3.3 trillion, that 1.5 trillion is administrative expenses, or this is a joke? Explain how slashing 1.5 trillion is an increase in wages and not a decrease in employment? Sanders is going senile or these people think we are stupid.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: carewemust
The key thing I want is for everyone who thinks Medicare is great, be able to buy into it. Don't make it a free hand-out. Medicaid is a free. But for those who think Medicare is better than private insurance, and can afford the $100 to $400 a month buy-in premium, let them give it a go.

You told you Medicare was free. It is one of the employment taxes that you and your employer pay into the system every pay period.

The system is in place and works efficiently. Would payments go up? Yes, on both you and your employer. It was under Reagan that Social Security and Medicare payments went up.

But you know this - your working right - paying your way - right.

Medicare sucks. They dont cover many things covered by private insurance. The reimbursement rates aren't as good. I think I recall in the state of illinois, Medicare/Medicaid is 19 months behind on reimbursements. The gov sucks at healthcare for the masses. The only reason they want your trust to run it is to take more of your money. I assure you that healthcare overall will suffer if the gov takes it over.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: carewemust
The key thing I want is for everyone who thinks Medicare is great, be able to buy into it. Don't make it a free hand-out. Medicaid is a free. But for those who think Medicare is better than private insurance, and can afford the $100 to $400 a month buy-in premium, let them give it a go.

You told you Medicare was free. It is one of the employment taxes that you and your employer pay into the system every pay period.

The system is in place and works efficiently. Would payments go up? Yes, on both you and your employer. It was under Reagan that Social Security and Medicare payments went up.

But you know this - your working right - paying your way - right.

Clearly he did not say Medicare is free. You do understand that a huge chunk of the population are under the working age or retired, and that of the working population that contribute, it is not a flat rate contribution right? So it is a handout because I would receive the same benefit as anyone else, even if I contribute nothing.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

With Medicare for all you would end up paying less for health care than you do now and you wouldn't have to worry about getting dropped if you get seriously ill. Who wouldn't want that?

a reply to: conscientiousobserver


One MANDATORY thing that a Medicare-for-all program must retain is the physician/hospital payment rate. Right now, 72% of doctors accept Medicare patients, but only 45% accept Medicaid patients. Medicaid pays 20% to 30% LESS to doctors for their services.

Graph, as of 2015: www.kff.org...

a reply to: drewlander

And those that do contribute would on average spend less on paying the Medicare for all tax than buying private insurance. Medicare already covers the poor through our taxes so why not expand it and let everybody share the benefits?

a reply to: drewlander

The reason illinois is behind is because their billionaire republican governor Bruce Rauner refused to pass a budget for multiple years until the Democrats caved. This has caused them to be behind on many different payments.

Costs the most in the western world but only ranks 37th in the world.
Yeah great system you have I will stick to our commie socialist NHS.
Gotta be doing something right seeing we live longer than you.

Sooo..

The more money you make, the more inclined do you feel about helping the poor? By doing your part in paying your stupidly overpriced medical services?

Or is it the other way around. (Carewemust?) You do not want to pay part of other peoples medical expenses, because you yourself have enough money for your own medical services and the rest should just stop being so poor?

Does this work out for the USA?

Because the rest of the world looks at this desaster and can not understand that you continue to let it happen.

a reply to: drewlander


Sometimes things need to be learned the hard way. Eventually, the pendulum would swing back towards private insurance being dominate, as people complained about higher taxes and longer wait-lines.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver


Illinois elected Republican Governor Bruce Rauner in 2015 because the state was flat broke. State payments to doctors, nursing homes, etc.. were 9 months late at the time. Democrats had run the state into the ground for 25 years. It will take years for things to improve.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

The more money you make, the more inclined do you feel about helping the poor? By doing your part in paying your stupidly overpriced medical services?

I work in the medical industry, I own a company. We do TONS for the poor in my area, hell even out of our area.

You do not want to pay part of other peoples medical expenses, because you yourself have enough money for your own medical services and the rest should just stop being so poor?

More like charity shouldnt be MANDATED.

Because the rest of the world looks at this desaster and can not understand that you continue to let it happen.

TO be fair most of the "rest of the world" falls far behind the US on medical care and services.

And they expect a country, that has a population most times 10x the size of other countries, with debt, GDP, and other factors that dont compare, to operate exactly like they do.

Its like I said on another thread, countries need to look at it like this :

You have a 4 person family, two parents and 2 kids, 55k a year, doing pretty decent.

Then that family expects another family with 2 parents, 4 kids, grandparents have moved in with health problems, to live off the same income with no issues.

It doesnt work that way.

originally posted by: drewlander

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: FyreByrd


How much does America spend on "healthcare" now? $33 Trillion over 10 years might be a bargain?

Edit: I see in 2015, it was $3.2 Trillion.
Source: www.forbes.com...

Agreed; it would be a bargain, and wildly optimistic at best. The 2016 spending was 3.3 trillion. Do we not anticipate inflation? Maybe 4% annually so wages rise in sync GDP? Enrollment is going to be stagnant too?

Come on dummies! I guarantee 33 trillion will look more like 50 trillion if you ever find a way out of the land of make-believe.

and thats CONSERVATIVE if the bubble pops, which it will eventually.

Our economy is being propped up by printing money, deferring debt, and HOPING that policies actually come through.

Meanwhile now we are throwing on Tarriffs, which could go either way, an influx of people coming up from our border now because of sanctuary states, all expecting to be taking care of, and spending that is STILL not being reigned in.

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Not the western world.
37th in ranking behind the likes of Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

The biggest problem I see with these ideas is how "our" government screws up everything it touches... and then the sheeps scream and fail like headless chickens in their defense.