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

originally posted by: atsgrounded
a reply to: FyreByrd

I agree with Bernie with this issue and college.

Our country is expected to compete with countries that "provide" (not free-tax) this for their citizens and many will provide it for US citizens as well.

Our system is broken. It will become apparent soon.

I'm a Canadian, I can tell you without a doubt, the Canadian medical care for all system is completely broken. My mother in law was diagnosed with cancer, took 3 months to get booked in with a cancer doctor. What a joke. I hope our system crashes and burns and something better comes out before I have kids.

For profit health insurance needs to be destroyed. When the company providing your health insurance is publicly traded, the goal is not your health, but increasing profit margins for stockholders. Any idea that shutters those companies is a good one.

a reply to: FyreByrd

That's only 20k a year per person.

Just to add I'm a single payer proponent.

a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

To be fair, Canada's healthcare system is only marginally better than the US'. I really don't get why so many people use it as a shining example of universal healthcare. People should be looking at France. They have universal healthcare and are ranked #1 in the world. All while spending less per capita on healthcare than the US.

originally posted by: drewlander

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.

And why is it that Private health care wants your dollars?

BTW - Illinois isn't paying the Medicare reimbursements - the Federal government is.

originally posted by: carewemust
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...

Don't you get it? Medicaid would go away with Medicare for all single payer system.

Duh....

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: watchitburn
How are Govt backed student loans going? They sure made college more affordable didn't they.

Wasn't Obama care supposed to to do the same thing?

You really think medical costs will be reduced with the Govt footing the entire bill?

How gullible can you be?

NOT ABOUT STUDENT LOANS. OR OBAMA.

No sh*t Sherlock.

But they serve as a good example of what happens when there is too much interference by the Govt in an industry.

Costs never go down, they always go up.

An absolutist to the end.

What about (whataboutism) the cost of printers going down, phones, cars anything mechanical seems to (or at least was - unitl - tada - TRADE WAR). So no costs do go down.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

Our employer is very open and honest when providing our options in their search for health care providers. That might be a rarity but it’s an example of working for a good employer. They pay for 93% of the coverage costs. They set us up with HSA,s and fund them $1,500, we just need to add the rest to meet the deductible.

You do have a good employer, congratulations.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Throes
Canada wait times:


www.fraserinstitute.org...

Can’t wait for this!

The Fraser Institute bias Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute is a Canadian public policy think tank and registered charity. It has been described as politically conservative and libertarian. Fraser Institute - Wikipedia

How about forbes? That a better source? Nothing like refuting content based on source. I’ll add 5 sources so you can’t run away from facts.

www.forbes.com...

m.huffingtonpost.ca...

m.huffpost.com...

theconversation.com...

montrealgazette.com... aiting-list

We need a system with free market principles. I do not trust our government to efficiently provide health care for all of us.

Your first three sources are business friendly always.

The second two were talking about routine surgeries - joint replacements and such. People can wait on those things they are debilitating but not life threatening.

In the US, under the for profit system, those surgeries are big bucks to the medical industry and many hospitals prioiritize them for profit reasons not medical reasons.

Yes in a county or state run hospital, the wait times for such routine surgeries would be longer.

None of that is the point - systems can always be improved.

The point is that everyone is covered, life-threatening situations are prioritized. You don't have people not receiving or waiting to long to get care because of deductibles, co-pays and high out-of-pocket expenses. Then there are all the people not covered at all - by private insurance or who make too much to qualify for assistance.

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.

I think the mistake here is in believing the Sanders numbers. Of course a communist is going to make it sound wonderful and feasible. Sanders may be an idealist (to be nice about it) but it's not realistic.

a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

Thats pretty bad my Mum has breast cancer and she was in on the table within a week of being diagnosed.
She has had a lot of trouble with her radiotherapy burns but I got to say the NHS has been great sending a nurse out everyday to change her bandage.

a reply to: FyreByrd

From the research I have done the main gripe about Canada is the fact that it can and is a 4-6 month wait to get a knee or hip. Better known as a elective (not really) meaning not going to kill ya.

Then we have cancer and life threatening stuff. From what I understand this is where your Dr becomes your advocate.

Anyone who thinks there are not long waits in the US are crazy. And I speak from personal experience.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Too late!, lol. You already DO pay for the mugs healthcare...and in tge worst way possible. Every lazyvswinging dick that wants FREE healthcare just goes tobthecemergrncy room and GETS IT. YOU pay for that through passed on costs and higher premiums. The ONLY way to get tge laxybto pay for their own healthcare is to tax them:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: FyreByrd

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass how many Americans support it... I'm not paying for your damn healthcare. I'll cover my own responsibilities, as I always have, please feel free to do the same.

Why would you not consider helping those who cant help themselves as a positive I am not sure, the attitude of I am alright screw the rest seems a little shortsighted, I live with the NHS and while I believe it can be improved (more pay for nurses and staff, ring fence the money required each year) the fact that if you came to the UK and got injured you could go to a hospital and be treated humanely with out being asked for your insurance papers.

If your children have a severe condition such as epilepsy or cancer there are hospitals in the UK that will provide the treatment for free, can you imagine the relief for those parents to know that their most loved ones can have access to the best health care, not having the burden of paying some insurance shill who then says, "sorry your insurance for your child does not cover that medication"

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

It's the American attitude of screw you jack I'm doing fine.....
They are getting conned and it costs them much more than most places.
If they can not see why it is good for society to have a decent healthcare system in place.
Oh well I will stick with our beloved NHS.

Many people dont understand why Medicare for all cannot work in the u.s.

Medical expenses are very high in the u.s..

And in America there are more people who will never contribute one penny towards medical expenses then there are those who pay.

More people who never give one second about their health then the ones that do.

All this does is make the people who do pay. Pay .more.

There is just too big of a gap from those contributing compared to those who will never give a penny.
.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass how many Americans support it... I'm not paying for your damn healthcare. I'll cover my own responsibilities, as I always have, please feel free to do the same.

You're failing to realize that you are already paying for others' healthcare, and that you're paying far more than needed.

When someone doesn't have a healthcare plan they only visit a doctor in a dire emergency, and thus it ends up being an expensive ER visit (often with an expensive ambulance ride tagged on as well). Since those ER visits go unpaid hospitals have to recoup that loss by raising prices across the board, thus you end up paying for all those unpaid and expensive ER visits with your higher costs.

Simple (and far cheaper) preventative care, such as yearly checkups, is far more cost effective than expensive ER visits and ambulance rides for preventable "emergencies". With universal healthcare there would be no more unpaid ER visits, and everyone would have access to preventative care which is far cheaper than all those visits to the ER. Furthermore, hospitals would be able to lower costs since there would be no more unpaid ER visits needing to be recouped through price hikes across the board.

The only question is, do you like paying for others highly-expensive ER visits like you're already doing now, or would you prefer to pay less with everyone having access to far cheaper preventative care (with the added bonus of lowered medical costs across the board since hospitals wouldn't have all those unpaid ER visits needing to be recouped)?

The 'me first, and screw everyone else" attitude is only shooting yourself in the foot when compared to the option of a two-fold cost reduction that universal healthcare can provide. Preventative care is cheaper, and the elimination of unnecessary and unpaid ER visits allows costs to drop across the board.

a reply to: Bloodworth

Caring for the sick and ill and helping them get back into the work force is better for society and everyone as a whole.
Like I said I just think it is because many of you are tight and selfish.

a reply to: testingtesting

It's not that easy and the few cannot support the many.
Affordable health care did 2 things. It provided healthcare to many who never have or never will contribute one dime to healthcare.

And that caused everyone to pay more, money has to come from some where

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Bloodworth

Caring for the sick and ill and helping them get back into the work force is better for society and everyone as a whole.
Like I said I just think it is because many of you are fiscally responsible and don’t trust our government to provide services efficiently.

I fixed your statement.