Warren and the left's Medicare for All offer for Votes

How many of you are for Medicare for all?

I was looking at the plan. They would give everyone Medicare part A. sound great but have you ever used Medicare part A t go to the doctor's?

Medicare part A only covers hospitalization and hospice care. That is right, no annual check-ups, no flu shots, no xrays, no setting of bones in case you break one, nothing even remotely that most medical insurance covers, like an examination if you break out in a rash, no pneumonia vaccinations, not even discounted pharmaceuticals.

The whole Medicare for All is an empty boat, It floats but wont carry you anywhere.

These are many of the empty promises the left is using to get voters.

In High School (1974), in our civic class, we were to have a vote for a class president to Demonstrate how both popular vote and Electoral College votes work. I ran, for shorter class time, a class Movie every Friday and I promised I would give everyone regardless of who they voted for a candy bar. The class was divided into 6 groups each one had an electoral vote and we campaigned for one month in class only of course.

At the end of the 30 days the vote was taken, I lost the popular vote by 3 votes but I had all the electoral votes. In the end I gave everyone a cheap candy bar. The one many of the voters in the class would never buy that kind because they were not that good.

What it proved was you can buy votes by offering free stuff and nice policies (which by the way were never passed by our class House and Senate. Our civic teacher could not believe that people would vote for the shiny objects of a candidates plan to get votes instead of voting for the issues that make more sense communally.

Our 1974 civics class is now being playing out in the real world of US politics. An openly gay man claiming to be a Christian, a fake Indian promising free medical, a openly socialist 70 plus year old who says he hates the rich while he himself owns three very nice homes, these are the players playing with the future of the US just to gain power.

BTW, while some of them have some differing policy promises there is one thing they are all running one and that is "to beat Donald Trump". While I do not like Trump's personality, I will have to give him credit. I give him the first year in offices as inheriting the economy that began to do well, but the last two and half years are all on him. He has made our military stronger, he has made the US respected again. Even if leaders talk bad about him behind his back, they are kissing his ring when face to face (cowards). He did the right thing in getting the new trade deal with Canada and Mexico and trying to get one done with China. I found his pulling us out of the Paris Accord was a great move, not only did we meet and surpass our green house gas emissions as agreed to in the Accord we wont have to pay billions of dollars in so called carbon taxes that go to the UN who don't do a thing for us anyway.

Anyway, I don't think going the way of the Democrats just to get rid of Trump is the correct strategy for our country. And if the Dems do win the presidency, I see a recession or maybe even a depression not because of Trump's policies but because the investors and even private citizens will lose faith in the direction the Dems want to take America.

We need to stop looking at the shiny promises and look to what really matters to everyone, a great economy, a great job's market and a great America. We should never vote for looks but for substance.

Client who enrolled in Medicare got a $542 bill last week. He asked me why. It turns out, he didn't pay enough years into the Medicare fund.

$542 per month is premium...and it will increase every year.

Imagine how much it would cost to put every American and Non-American on FREE Medicare!

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I love how it's called government funded healthcare...
The government does fund anything, tax payers do.

We do need some sort of socialized medicine, one that stops Doctors and Pharmaceutical from raping their customers. Not all doctors are bad, neither are all Pharma companies. But if you or your insurance company spend two hundred grand to treat you when you only have maybe six months to live with the treatment vs two months without, that is not even practical. Then you cannot discriminate if you are an insurance company, they have to allow anyone who qualifies to get treated if it is equivalent, so a ninety year old who has cancer still qualifies for a heart operation even though he the person only has six months maximum to live. or vice versa, a person with a failing heart gets cancer and a quarter of a million is spent on the person when everyone knows that person will never even live through all the operations and chemotherapy because of his heart. A good doctor will advise the person not to do it sometimes, but other hospitals just look at their bottom line, they need to keep their business booming and their workers working.

If we were to do anything, we should adopt socialized medicine. Our healthcare system sucks, for all the money spent by patients, we have a poorer healthcare system at a higher cost than many other countries.

Medicare for all is not going to fix the problem. Hospitals and doctors have to pay their bills, we need to change the system.

I don’t want government to be involved in my healthcare. Everything the government touches is inefficient and low quality.

a reply to: rickymouse

Part of the problem is that with pharma especially, so many other countries do have socialized care. They bargain for drug prices, and the company either accepts it or loses out.

The problem is that they then foist the losses off on the countries that do not bargain and the cost of medicines get that much higher for everyone else. So in a roundabout way, socialized medicine countries force the rest of us to subsidize their medicines and we all pay extra for them which is part of where our high prescription costs come from.

Think of it as the Obamacare effect on a global scale.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

Part of the problem is that with pharma especially, so many other countries do have socialized care. They bargain for drug prices, and the company either accepts it or loses out.

The problem is that they then foist the losses off on the countries that do not bargain and the cost of medicines get that much higher for everyone else. So in a roundabout way, socialized medicine countries force the rest of us to subsidize their medicines and we all pay extra for them which is part of where our high prescription costs come from.

Think of it as the Obamacare effect on a global scale.

There are some agreements made between our government and Pharma companies. One of those agreements allows overcharging people and insurances so that Medicare and medicaid drugs are cheaper for the government, meaning the middle and upper class are having higher prescription costs and copays. The workers are all ready paying to subsidize medicaid. Hospitals who do services and the people don't pay....they get reimbursed by the insurance companies, a higher rate they pay, to cover those costs. The government does not pay for those anymore, Obamacare and maybe even before it was tacked to the bill of those who have insurances. so each hospital or doctor gets a different rate of reimbursement from the insurance. Then the hospitals sell the bill at about ten percent of it's value, even though it has been payed, to collection agencies which come after you for the whole amount. The rules allow for them to do that, I actually think it was a little less than ten percent, but don't remember off hand. That can be found in government documents. Churches are now bidding on those bills going to collections and with five hundred bucks, they can wipe out ten grand worth of bills that people would be having to pay. I guess anyone certified can get registered as a collection agency for that. There are also some millionaire charities doing that, the collection agencies usually sue for full price of the bill that was acquired even though they may have only paid eight cents on the dollar. Plus, they tack lots of interest and fees on the bills.

There is not enough medical staff and doctors to go around so it doesn't matter if everyone received free healthcare. Yes, one may be entitled to order grilled swordfish but if the restaurant is out then that is that. No swordfish.

Besides, most of the medical problems in the US are associated with obesity, lack of exercise and poor diets. That must be addressed first and foremost. Don't take care of yourself, go to the back of the line. Way way back.

a reply to: ketsuko

**ding, ding, ding**

...and no, that's not Silver Bells... j/k

Someone, somewhere, will foot the bill. That's what so many forget, or don't know...or worse, won't tell you, hoping that you won't notice.

Someone foots the bill. Always.

a reply to: ketsuko

I had a friend who lived in England, he wasn't feeling well went to the Doctors office, they couldn't find anything so they did blood work three days later and then it took a month to get the results. They said his salt levels were high. Doctor recommended a diet change. A month later he still wasn't feeling well had headaches and fevers. So they scheduled a CAT scan. He was called four weeks later and told he is scheduled in 9 months as they had a back log.

One month before his scan he died suddenly, turned out he had Pancreatic Cancer. He might not have lived anyway but still 11 months to even get close to seeing what was wrong and he died before they could find out. The real Irony was that it took the Medical Examiner 4 days to tell them what he died of.

a reply to: seagull

so very true.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I've heard there's a bit of a trade-off. It can work OK if you have a basic need like a simple ailment, but if you have something serious, then the waiting can finish you off.

Or if you're in the sort of boat I was in - needing arthroscopic shoulder surgery for a frozen shoulder complicated by a SLAP tear - then you might end up waiting long past a simpler recovery phase because they could consider it elective where I got in and out within the month once it was decided I was going to need a surgical solution for any realistic time-frame for recovery.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don’t want government to be involved in my healthcare. Everything the government touches is inefficient and low quality.

I dunno. The government surveillance apparatus is second to none. Nobody spies on their people better than the US.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don’t want government to be involved in my healthcare. Everything the government touches is inefficient and low quality.

I dunno. The government surveillance apparatus is second to none. Nobody spies on their people better than the US.

Says no Chinese citizen ever

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nice anecdote. That happens all the time in the USA as well. Just look at all the lawyers who would love to help you sue doctors for misdiagnosing, malpractice, etc. On top of that, insurance companies here just decide 'nah, we aren't gonna pay for that... despite you paying into the insurance for decades and that this would be totally beneficial/potentially save your life'. Painting a picture with a solitary "friend" story is never a good tactic when trying to make a point.

#1 reason people file for bankruptcy in the USA... medical debt. All good though!

a reply to: ChesterJohn

And all the right is offering is poverty wages for all. I don't mind the free stuff. The billionaires can pay more. When you have more money than you can spend in 300 lifetimes what difference does it make if the common Joe gets descent healthcare?????

originally posted by: markovian

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don’t want government to be involved in my healthcare. Everything the government touches is inefficient and low quality.

I dunno. The government surveillance apparatus is second to none. Nobody spies on their people better than the US.

Says no Chinese citizen ever

They better not, if they know what's good for them.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The problem is you wont get good health care.