Poll: 70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal

a reply to: Grambler

medicare is about double the efficiency of the private healthcare sector.

All the insurance policies are administered by private companies for Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid. The governments role is to lay down the rules they need to operate by. Medicare is much more efficient because they actually cap payments. Still plenty of Doctors bitching about the caps while they run to the bank with the cash they make.

I do not want companies run for profit deciding what services they have to cover.

a reply to: ketsuko

You will still have to pay even if it goes to single payer. It is also likely that the government will spend much less under this system than they do currently. That said Obamacare was set up to not require additional spending by government. When the penalty taxes were being collected they actually met this mandate. But you all want to fight Obamacare so single payer will be here much faster than you want to believe and you will have to participate.

originally posted by: amazing
I pay taxes every year. I'd like some of my money to go for medical insurance/healthcare for all.

Instead of the trilliions we waste on stupid stuff, like congressional salaries for one.

Look you should at least have a vague idea about the budget before saying something so stupid.

The entire government budget is about 4 trillion. Of that 2.5 trillion is already spent on Medicare/Medicade, Social Security, and Interest on the debt.

There is no Trillion(s) being wasted - the entire military budget is 700 billion. We are already running nearly a 1 trillion dollar deficit.

Do you know what this medicare for all would cost - an additional 3 trillion a year. So you are advocating for a near tripling of taxes to not run a deficit. You know what that would do? Make us a 3rd world nation REAL quick.

I am so tired of you uneducated socialists. The problem with our medical system has nothing to do with it not being socialist - it has everything to do with it being a federally protected monopoly.

Nobody gets to see a price before they go for care - means there is no competition.

Drugs cannot be imported from other countries - means there is no competition.

Licenses are only approved for hospital chains / big medical for things like mri's and other testing - no competition.

Our university's get to raise tution to insane levels because the government says student loan debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy. This has caused tution to more than triple in about 20 years. Guess what with doctors staying in school for 7-8 years that goes right to medical costs as well.

The problem is our system is NOT capitalist at all!

This by the way is my biggest complaint about Trump - he has done a terrible job explaining this to the public - Actually he has not even tried too and it is disgraceful since it is our largest economic problem - BY FAR.

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: Grambler

All these socialist medical systems in Europe have doctors making significantly less, they were educated for much less than the us, and don’t have a legal system run amok.

You got any evidence to back up your claim that doctors in the US are making way more money than other doctors in first world countries with universal healthcare?

I realize someones cashing in big time on the corrupt and ridiculously over charged US healthcare system. But, I don't think its the doctors themselves who are rorting the American people ... I think it goes much deeper than that.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: Grambler

medicare is about double the efficiency of the private healthcare sector.

All the insurance policies are administered by private companies for Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid. The governments role is to lay down the rules they need to operate by. Medicare is much more efficient because they actually cap payments. Still plenty of Doctors bitching about the caps while they run to the bank with the cash they make.

I do not want companies run for profit deciding what services they have to cover.

Do you not understand that capping the payments is only working because it is a limited portion of the population, and they make up the difference on the private sector?

You think doctors - a huge portion that simply refuse medicare patients completely already because the prices are to low, will just accept these price caps for everyone without a fight?

Let me give you a hint - it's called a strike - and if doctors go on strike well let's just say they have a lot of leverage.

The only way prices can be lowered without major disruptions is to make competition legal and required - gradually the prices will come down and doctors will begrudgingly accept it. You immediately create price caps and they will resist.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: Grambler

All these socialist medical systems in Europe have doctors making significantly less, they were educated for much less than the us, and don’t have a legal system run amok.

You got any evidence to back up your claim that doctors in the US are making way more money than other doctors in first world countries with universal healthcare?

I realize someones cashing in big time on the corrupt and ridiculously over charged US healthcare system. But, I don't think its the doctors themselves who are rorting the American people ... I think it goes much deeper than that.

I did not say doctors were the main ones making out - they are just one group that is.
But to answer your question here is some average salaries in the UK

UK doctor salaries

compare with their US counter parts

US doctor salaries

So basically US doctors make 3-4 times as much.

The ones really making out as far as I can tell are the hospital chains.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: amazing
I pay taxes every year. I'd like some of my money to go for medical insurance/healthcare for all.

Instead of the trilliions we waste on stupid stuff, like congressional salaries for one.

You know what?

Before anyone thinks about another free gimmee to people. I want us to pay off the national debt, fix the entitlement programs we already pay out on, and create a workable, sustainable budget ... *without* drastically raising my taxes.

Then, maybe we can talk about another pie-in-the-sky entitlement to wreck sh!t all over again.

It's not an entitlement if I'm paying for it. Do you know how many tens of thousands...maybe even hundreds of thousands Iv'e paid in taxes in my lifetime. That's not an entitlement. I don't want that money going to bombs for Israel or dinner with Saudi Killers or a bloated NSA/CIA/IRS/FBI/Homeland Security and Fema budget.

It's not an entitlement if we've already paid for it.

But you're *not* paying for it, and that's the problem.

The whole idea is that everyone thinks that the amount they get taken for in taxes is enough, but it's not. It's not enough, not nearly enough to provide the kind of care everyone thinks of, so the government either goes into debt like it is now to cover what the taxes don't, or it rations, or it plays the game of finding new and ever more inventive ways of squeezing water from a stone (taxing).

But I pay taxes. My taxes and the millions of others that think like me wnat some of their tax money to go towards heatlhcare. It is enough when you consider that the US government already spends roughly 1 Trillion dollars per year on healthcare. The numbers from 2015 were $980 Billion.

Guess what? I pay taxers too, and 50% of Americans roughly, do not. And what you and I and other entities pay is not enough for what is there now.

That's what I keep telling you.

But there's also not enough for our military spending or our CIA black budget or FEMA or homeland security or congressional salaries or anyone of the thousands of things we spend money on. We have to draw the line somewhere.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: amazing
I pay taxes every year. I'd like some of my money to go for medical insurance/healthcare for all.

Instead of the trilliions we waste on stupid stuff, like congressional salaries for one.

Look you should at least have a vague idea about the budget before saying something so stupid.

The entire government budget is about 4 trillion. Of that 2.5 trillion is already spent on Medicare/Medicade, Social Security, and Interest on the debt.

There is no Trillion(s) being wasted - the entire military budget is 700 billion. We are already running nearly a 1 trillion dollar deficit.

Do you know what this medicare for all would cost - an additional 3 trillion a year. So you are advocating for a near tripling of taxes to not run a deficit. You know what that would do? Make us a 3rd world nation REAL quick.

I am so tired of you uneducated socialists. The problem with our medical system has nothing to do with it not being socialist - it has everything to do with it being a federally protected monopoly.

Nobody gets to see a price before they go for care - means there is no competition.

Drugs cannot be imported from other countries - means there is no competition.

Licenses are only approved for hospital chains / big medical for things like mri's and other testing - no competition.

Our university's get to raise tution to insane levels because the government says student loan debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy. This has caused tution to more than triple in about 20 years. Guess what with doctors staying in school for 7-8 years that goes right to medical costs as well.

The problem is our system is NOT capitalist at all!

This by the way is my biggest complaint about Trump - he has done a terrible job explaining this to the public - Actually he has not even tried too and it is disgraceful since it is our largest economic problem - BY FAR.

Bro, I've been researching it. I'm not an uneducated socialist. I'm an independent who actually voted Libertarian last election. I doubt you voted that conservative. It's funny when you run into someone with a different opinion you have to start with an insult? That's the true sign of someone who's uneducated and ignorant, they start with insults and the "...I'm so tired of..." rants.

Go back and research the numbers. in 2015 we spent about $980 Billion on Healthcare including medicaid and medicare. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put us trillions in debt. You have to remember that before 9/11 the pentagon had lost 1 trillion. We also have over 700 military installations world wide. that we really don't need.

There's a lot we can do healthcare wise in this country. Look it up.

a reply to: proximo

Still though, the UK aside... Going by the stats, US doctors are still only the third highest payed by country.

Apparently, they come third place to other countries who have a universal healthcare system... So it doesn't seem like all that extra money US citizens pay for healthcare services is actually providing a higher quality of service by going directly to the doctors.

Source

a reply to: Grambler

The hill is a left-wing source. As such they often claim their results are accurate, but often times they do not ask people who lean to the right in politics.

Look at it this way. Over 62 million people, if not more, voted for Trump for POTUS. meanwhile Hillary got the popular vote, mostly out of illegal/non-citizen votes, and the myriad of ways democrats have been getting illegal votes, such as including dead people.

According to the following study there are 43.1 million illegals living in the U.S., which is a much higher figure that other sites report.

www.justfacts.com...

But let's say there are 12 million illegals in the U.S., even if a smaller portion of them voted, it is enough to skew the votes in favor of democrats/liberals.

If in the 2008 elections up to 5.7 million illegals could have voted in the Presidential elections, more could have voted in 2016.

But let's say there are 60 million democrats/liberals who voted for Hillary for POTUS.
And let's say that also only 60 million conservatives/Republicans and others who lean to the right, voted for Trump for POTUS.

Isn't it more logical that about half of the "legal" U.S. population voted for both candidates? That would mean that maybe about half of the U.S. legal population would also vote for "medicare for all."

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: proximo

Still though, the UK aside... Going by the stats, US doctors are still only the third highest payed by country.

Apparently, they come third place to other countries who have a universal healthcare system... So it doesn't seem like all that extra money US citizens pay for healthcare services is actually providing a higher quality of service by going directly to the doctors.

Source

The US has more than 10x's the number of doctors as Australia and Netherlands... straight average salaries don't necessarily tell the whole story.

As sad as it is to say, if you think of the military as a business, their endeavors must have a positive ROI in some way, otherwise we wouldn't put so much money into it, and have our fingers in every cookie jar around the world. Anyways, regarding healthcare, we need an open market approach, more competition, and to let companies operate across state lines.
a reply to: notsure1

originally posted by: Grambler
I feel that medicare for all is a bad idea, as every government ran institution seems to become inefficient and bloated. In fact look at the government run VA hospitals and how poor many of them are.

Here's the deal...it is not going to happen in the United States as long as people line up to whine about how it can't be done. There are huge industries bleeding you dry. As long as you let them do your talking for you...and let the nay-sayers explain why this is a good thing, you will not have a health care system that gives a #. It's up to y'all.

Don't believe much in polls. If anything, they tell ya the exact opposite of the truth so I guess they're good if ya look at it that way.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: ketsuko

You will still have to pay even if it goes to single payer. It is also likely that the government will spend much less under this system than they do currently. That said Obamacare was set up to not require additional spending by government. When the penalty taxes were being collected they actually met this mandate. But you all want to fight Obamacare so single payer will be here much faster than you want to believe and you will have to participate.

You realize that Obamacare trashed what many of us had for health care? The policies many were forced to buy were less than what they had before at a much higher cost? And as time wore on, there were less providers too.

So the government spends less according to you while I pay more and receive less in service.

If that's how it works, less for more spending out of my pocket, then what's to desire about it again?

Understanding of course, that we got lucky. We never had buy an actual exchange policy, but we kept apprised of what we would have had to pay just in case. We would have actually been bankrupted by Obamacare even at bronze levels. It wasn't even going to be workable for us to divorce and continue on living together. That would have put one of us on Medicaid, but we were still looking at having to buy an Obamacare policy out of pocket with no subsidy for the other ... and still too expensive.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Grambler

Countries that do have this type of medicine generally have a better quality of life for everyone.

...I'm not sure someone working 60+% of their year before seeing any of their earnings actually make it into their account thanks to taxes out the ass to pay for everyone else constitutes "a better quality of life."

Sounds like you're complaining to me.

What happened to bootstraps?

a reply to: Grambler

Like it or not, and for multiple reasons, healthcare is a 'commodity' (read: limited resource).

You cannot give unlimited amounts of limited resources away for free, because they disappear.

Healthcare is a limited resource because some of its components include time, labor, training, information and other various technologies, expensive machines, physical infrastructure, medicines, and on, and on....

The only way I can see, as an individual working within the healthcare industry, to provide medicare or something similar to all would be to both limit resources accessible to patients, and limit individual patient choices.

On an actuarial table, if you slow treatment down, some people will die from related or other causes during the delay, and that becomes a way to save money. Please don't tell me that is not happening right now - even in the US - because I SEE it almost every day, in one form or another. Resources and choices are currently being limited by Medicare, but ALSO insurance companies, emergency rooms … everyone. It is done behind the curtain most of the time.

The current system completely sucks, don't get me wrong. I really don't know how to fix this mess either. Breaking up the corporate healthcare cartel would be a start. Eliminating as much of the over-regulation and bureaucracy as possible would be another start.

Medicare for all would be a different system, better for some, worse for some … but in what ratio? I also hazard that it would add more regulation and bureaucracy, because I cannot see how that could be done with less, but what do I know?

a reply to: amazing

You can't vote Libertarian and then advocate for the government to absolutely control 6% of the entire economy by turning it into a complete monopoly.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: notsure1

Not sure that wars the problem. Look at Canada’s NHS, it will account for nearly 80% of Canada’s GDP by 2030. That’s not sustainable.

Since you didn't provide a source for this dumb claim, I went and looked it up.

That was a projection by some bank specifically on the province of Ontario and cited by the National Review.

Per the report, Canada's NHS was 46% of Ontario's GDP in 2010 and the report assumed a growth of almost 33% of the GDP in 20 years.

8 years later... National Health Expenditure Trends
Health expenditures are less than 12% of Canada's GDP.

So, no. Try again with a less biased and dated source.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

People don't understand that this is actually what happens in socialized health care countries.