Majority of Americans Support Medicaid for All

Not even a ligit article.
It’s from the opinion page by the advisor Avis Roy, to Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio.
Before you get laughed right of the forum, use references from institutions, not individual bloggers who just write opinions.....these are not based in fact.

 

Yes an expert in the field and backed by facts. Lack of rebuttal noted the points stand.

 

Medicaid is an optional program, no state can be forced to participate. They've all chosen to.

 

Correct I should have said every state does participate to the claim some red states don't. But then that old government trick that if the state doesn't participate the federal tax dollar share of the federal matching funds the states citizens paid in don't flow back.

 

Tell me you actually read the article....
Ha ha, he’s no expert by his own admission. He’s an opinion editor. Anyone who falls for this is just another right wing lackey.

Here are the facts.

This Right wing charlatan by his own admission, figures the cost for administering Medicare by cost per patient and not per dollar spent ....and I quote from your article. “ more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. “


That’s completely wrong. The elderly may have three to four times the number of procedures then younger healthy people. They can have more cancer, more physical therapy and more operations. Of course charging an elderly patient for four separate procedures cost more to administer then one for a healthy person. Only someone with the mentality of a mature cucumber would accept this totally bias and bogus article.

It’s cost over dollar spent over all that’s fair. A young healthy person could have no procedures over 20 years and rack up zero administrative costs. Medicare now services the elderly. They are more expensive to insure.....! They cost more dollars to begin with ! Get it.
You’ll never get it.

 

You’re confusing basic Medicaid, which all states Chose to participate in with Medicaid expansion which is an off shot of the ACA which many red states chose not to participate in because it was part if Obamacare. . If the states choose not to participate p, it costs them NOTHING in either case
“flow back”/is something you just made up. People need to be called out on all their made up BS. We need a full time moderator to check the crappola .

 

Actually, no. The site is the address, the cite us false.
Btw, even the graph disagrees with the premise of the author that Medicare has higher administrative rates. You do know that rates are % and they are lower for all years for Medicare. Guess this blogger forgot to “ do the math.”

 

No I didn't the person to whom I was responded did and acknowledged as such. And it cost the citizens of the state who pay taxes to the federal government as those taxes are used in the matching funds that flow to the other states. Why not let them deduct what portion of their federal taxes go into the Medicaid reimbursement funds if they live in a state that does not have a Medicaid program?

 

Here is why you don’t reimburse federal tax back to states that don’t participate in voluntary projects like these. First look at these facts.

https://www.politicscentral.org/red-states-receive-substantially-more-federal-aid-than-blue-states/

Red states as a group are poorer and already RECEIVE more federal aid then they pay in federal taxes. When they choose not to participate the gap would be greater IF YOU REIMBURSED THEM . The entire idea of taxes is to support areas in need with tax contributions from wealthier blue states. The gap would be greater for states like NY and California and Texas which are always donor states. Giving the surplus back to THEM makes more sense. If people are going to die without healthcare, richer areas are always asked to share the burden to provide it. You don’t reward the poorer areas more for refusing the aid when they already are non donor states.


It happens at the federal, state and local level where taxes are always redistributed on voluntary projects to help less fortunate areas. All,taxation is redistribution of wealth whether if be for mandated or voluntary projects.
Conservatives in red states never get that basic idea until they want to force their ideas on donor states which already pay higher taxes.

Who suffers the most ? The inner city poor from blue states whose federal taxes are donated to red states and not kept internally;.and you guys make a habit of blaming them.

 

We're talking about Medicare a specific program do try to focus.

 

Medicaid WAS NOT CUT. Correlation does not prove causation.

 

How about we force other countries to honor and respect our intellectual properties. WSJ covers this topic today on their editorial page.

Why Are Drugs Cheaper in Europe?
....The reason European countries pay less for drugs is because they run single-payer health systems and dictate the prices they’re willing to pay. Don’t like it? They’ll then vitiate your patents and make a copycat. This is hardly a “voluntary” discount. Other countries have the luxury of extortion because the U.S. produces more drugs than the rest of the world combined.

By the way, Europe does pay more—in the form of reduced access. Of 74 cancer drugs launched between 2011 and 2018, 70 (95%) are available in the United States. Compare that with 74% in the U.K., 49% in Japan, and 8% in Greece. This should cure anyone of the delusion that these countries will simply start to pay more for drugs. They’re willing to deny treatments if it saves money.

Drugs that are approved in foreign countries are often delayed in reaching patients—on average 17 months across 16 industrialized nations, by one analysis. Other countries have lengthy fights about how much the health system will pay, whereas in the U.S. drugs are available almost immediately after approval. Better quality care in the U.S. is why America outpaces 10 European countries on cancer survival rates—a fact the White House mentioned in a report last week on the costs of socialism. Maybe Mr. Trump should read that report......
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-are-drugs-cheaper-in-europe-1540760855

 

Why don't you post the data showing which actual 10 european countries we beat on cancer survival and while at it post the european countries that do better than the US.

Since there are 50 european countries one assumes from your post the other 40 have higher survival rates thsn the US.

 

I'll take the WSJ accuracy. Why don't you comment on the substance and proposals in the cite which is about drug cost.

 

Because drug costs are not the topic of the OP. And if the WSJ is correct then 40 countries achieve better cancer survival rates than the US. And since the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other country that would indicate the US is doing something seriously wrong on healthcare.

 

The Federal government spends MORE THAN DOUBLE on health care programs than on national defense.

 

Medicare for All, at current cost projections, would require an additional 18% FICA tax split between employers and employees, uncapped, as the Medicare FICA portion currently is.

What that means is that the burden of health care, currently resting on the wealthy, will be transferred to everyone. Which is why the wealthy love the idea of Medicare for All.

 

Because government health programs cost substantially more, and cover far less, than private insurance companies.

 

This is probably the biggest lie perpetrated by the right everytime this topic comes up. The govt. manages these entitlement funds which in large part for SS and Medicare, are paid for out of their own trust funds from mandatory payroll taxes from the poor and middle class. The wealthy contribute nothing to these funds. As a matter of FACT, the surpluses of each go into the general fund through treasury bond issue, and help pay for Medicaid and other supplementary welfare funds......including the military.

The massive tax cut giveaway to the rich created by the criminal element of the GOP put a huge burden on the trust funds. The instant this huge deficit occurs, Mitch and his other cronies supported by ignorant republicans who themselves are sucking on the tit of social security and Medicare, instantly declare that cutbacks to SS, Medicaid and Medicare are necessary, so the poor and middle class can continue to be major supporters of a military that is larger then everyother major nation combined.

A military that does what....may go to the boarder to protect itself agaisnt the invading hordes of women and children seeking legal asylum as refugees. Lock and load your m15 s conservatives. Here’s is a chance to kill more civilians on the boarder with the help of our payroll taxes.

 

Businesses would love it.....
Ha ha.....how much do you pay now for health insurance premiums ? The employer pays much more then that in most cases in employer based benefits, as do we. It’s a HUGE SAVINGS. 18%( 9% each) is chicken feed. Great argument FOR SINGLE PAYER....and guaranteed health insurance any where you work. You can quit the coal mines and work in the fresh air without fear of losing your healthcare....

I suppose you think with single payer tax increase, you’ll also keep paying premiums ? Don’t think so. think oh it...9% instead of 15% employers pay and 9% instead of health insurance premiums. Thanks for supporting the Medicare for all movement.

 

Do you have Medicare ? If you did, you’d know it’s a false statement. Don’t look in the mirror if you are covered. The guy on the other side knows better.

 

Social spending is driving deficit growth.

Medicare received $260 billion from general revenue in 2017, which is $70 billion more than it is estimated the tax cuts cost. Medicare costs will double over the next decade, adding trillions to the deficit.

These programs are unsustainable, and require cuts.

That 18% new tax assumes that the current $1.5 trillion in Federal health spending is maintained, and transferred, to fund Medicare for All.

So 21% of every American's income(the 2.9% current Medicare tax, plus the new 18%), and the lion's share of all taxes currently paid. What an incredible deal, considering how like most Americans I pay nothing for health care.

 

Double Post

 

I'm 28 years old.

My health insurance plan covers everything, 100%.

Medicare doesn't come close

 

It’s not too late. I highly recommend you go down to the federal building and ask them if you can refuse enrollment in Medicare in religious grounds. This has been done successfully by the Mennonites.