"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

Ask any healthcare provider. The overhead and red tape is much worse with private insurance. The proof ? We lose 30 k people a year for lack of insurance. How long is their waiting list. Why don’t you poll people on Medicare..
.see if they want private insurance instead. Nope.

 

Who's going to pay for it? Who is paying for it now? Wrestle that one first then figure out where to go from there. Keep in mind that American health care cost per capita is double that of any other advanced industrialized nation on earth. Then there is outcomes. America ranks below twenty-five percent of of the world in infant mortality and longevity and longevity in America is getting worse, not better. No matter how you cut it, American health care is very expensive and third rate. Wrap your head around that then figure out where we are going wrong.

Proclaiming American health care is best in the world just doesn't hold up anymore. It is the most expensive though - 19% of GDP goes to health care. Here is one useful step: separate quality from delivery. Our quality is top notch, our delivery system is a disaster. Sad to say our quality is not the best in class anymore. Places like Asia, India, Egypt, much of the Middle East, and even Europe match us in that department. Most of America's newly hired doctors are brown. My cardiologist, acknowledged as the best, is.

It all boils down to delivery, delivery, delivery. There are enough strap hangers sucking on the great hundred teat delivery cow to milk the system dry and let's start with insurance companies. An insurance company's value add is what? I forgot. Then there is big pharma ripping off anyone and everything that breathes. When a system is broken you can either fix it, replace it, or live with the results.

Obamacare was a good attempt in need of review and repair. It needs to be fixed, not whined about by a bunch of feckless politicians that have never fixed anything but an election in their lives. Albeit a low one, Obamacare is a baseline from which to build a functioning system. Replace it? With what? We never seem to get around to that one. Obamacare should be run by experienced administrators and project managers, not a bunch to dumber than dirt politicians unable to think beyond their new election. Then pay them to dig in to fix it. Repair it. Make it work.

 

We already have socialized medicine. You’re too late. Military, Medicare, Medicaid chips, al, socialized medicine. Even ER care is socialized medicine. Btw, we have 90% private providers.
The govt ONLY PROVIDES THE INSURANCE. Medicare is insurance, not a orivuder.

 

you were given a peer reviewed paper showing single payer systems are superior to ours, lol

 

This is the simple truth no opponent of single payer dares to address. Our system is wasteful, inefficient, and costly with inferior health outcomes compared to developed nations because they have a nationalized model. We pretend that isn't so at our financial and health peril.

 

Good post.
Obamacare was initiated as much to care for the hemorging of a million workers a month who were losing their employer based healthcare as anything else. It also helped the job market as Obamacare needs produced an average of 20k HC related work a month.

Medicare for all will do the same thing. There will be a shortage on delivery only if we make too many concession. I like the public option but it is still a burden on the system. Payroll taxes have no deductions and they’re dependable. Employers who would pay less into system can better afford a wage increase. It’s a no brainer. Unfortunately , we have a “ no brain” party running half our govt.

 

The essential benefit to a nationalized system, besides better health for our citizens, is cost controls imposed on an industry that if left unchecked will end up bankrupting the nation.

 

Why socialized medicine fails: Sooner or later you run out of other people's money

https://www.naturalnews.com/050082_Obamacare_socialized_medicine_socialism.html

Socialized medicine a global failure

"In recent years, Swedish residents have gravitated toward private insurance to avoid the rationed care and long wait times common in the country’s single-payer system. Today, roughly one in 10 Swedes — more than half a million people — has a private health insurance policy.

As the Swedish economist Nima Sanandaji recently explained, the country’s socialist experiment has proven “such a colossal failure that few even in the left today view the memory as something positive.”

Of course, Sanders needn’t look abroad to see how socialized medicine fails patients. Just last year, his home state of Vermont abandoned an attempt to launch a statewide single-payer system. The reason? As Gov. Peter Shumlin — who supported it — explained, “The cost of that plan turned out to be enormous.”"

https://www.pacificresearch.org/socialized-medicine-a-global-failure/

Socialized Medicine: A Dose of Reality

"There seems to be a myth that all medical care, procedures and drugs are free under a socialized system. Although Britons do have affordable access to primary-care doctors, and everyone in the UK is covered through high taxes, they are subjected to extensive waiting periods for specialists, surgeries and hospitalization. The fact is that in the West, as the ability of physicians to provide services becomes stretched, many patients die waiting for treatment."

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12102/socialized-medicine

FACT SHEET: Socialized Medicine Is a Failure Everywhere It's Been Tried

In terms of both availability and quality of care, single-payer systems leave citizens out in the cold

"WAIT TIMES IN COUNTRIES WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE ARE ATROCIOUS

STATS: UNITED KINGDOM

• “The figures show that a total of 3.7 million people in the UK are now on the waiting list for non-urgent operations, up from 2.4 million in 2008.” -- The Telegraph
• “More than 360,000 of them have been on the waiting list for more than the minimum waiting time of 18 weeks, equivalent to one in 10.” -- The Telegraph
• “It means that 1 in 14 people living in England is now on an NHS waiting list.” The Telegraph

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2996

17 Arguments Against Socialized Medicine

"Finally, let us consider the moral issue. You may feel that this is simple—that it is not morally correct for society to neglect those in need. But is there such a thing as "collective morality"?4 Is not moral action exclusively individual? Can any action be moral if it is induced by compulsion? Who is acting and thinking in moral terms: the person who, cognizant of those in need, seeks to remedy the situation insofar as possible by resorting to his own pocketbook, or a person who thinks only in terms of legislation to force everyone else to take care of the problem?

Even if the facts were otherwise and it could be shown that the government were capable of providing satisfactory medical care, the basic moral question you should ask yourself is this: What right have I to take another’s property without his consent, for my personal use? Under what conditions does it become proper or right for any individual or group to rob another?"

https://fee.org/articles/17-arguments-against-socialized-medicine/

The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away

"A report released in October by Britain's health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients.

As part of the study, inspectors dropped by dozens of hospitals unannounced. They found patients shouting or banging on bedrails desperately trying to get the attention of a nurse. At one hospital, inspectors identified bed-ridden patients that hadn't been given water for over 10 hours.

The upcoming austerity measures will only amplify maladies like these.

The NHS is broken -- and not in some superficial way that a simple tweak would fix. The incentives are wrong. The government's main priority is keeping costs low -- not providing quality care. Patients can't choose how they receive their care -- it's one-size-fits-all medicine. And the entrenched NHS bureaucracy has no reason to improve efficiency.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...d-medicine-are-not-going-away-3/#521d20c33f2f

Why Socialized Health Care Is Unjust

"The argument for this kind of system is simple. Supporters say it will enable everyone to access health care and cost less than our current mix of private and public health expenditures. Most of all, they argue this system would be morally superior to others.

All of those claims are dubious, but the last is the biggest whopper. In fact, socialized medicine is immoral. It relies on coercion and results in shortages and long wait times, which means worse care. It is rife with inequality and inefficiency, leading to serious harms."

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/19/why-socialized-health-care-is-unjust/

NHS Socialized Medicine In Britain: Unmitigated Failure

"A new report on Britain's National Health Service notes that as many as 13,000 needless deaths have occurred in 14 NHS hospital trusts since 2005. This is no fluke. It's the result of socialized medicine, done by experts."

https://www.investors.com/politics/...ocialized-health-care-an-unmitigated-failure/

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

"I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks."

https://www.city-journal.org/html/ugly-truth-about-canadian-health-care-13032.html

How much more evidence do you leftists need that socialism ****ing sucks?

 

Exactly. We’re finding out that drug companies deliberately encouraged drug dependency. They’re no better then cigarette companies in the respect.

 

Socialsm ? I doubt that anyone from the right knows what it is,
After all, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, snow plows, public libraries are all socialism. But these are the same guys who’ll pretend something in front of their eyes doesn’t exist.

 

Heh, funny. But yes, I know Medicare and Social Security are socialism, and I oppose them. They should be privatized and done away with. Snow plows are part of utility maintenance, not socialism. Libraries were first instituted by Benjamin Franklin, hardly a socialist. Medicaid is a necessity, either at the federal, state, or local level, take your pick. I would pick state level myself. It's currently split about 50/50 federal and state.

 

No matter how you parce it, you’ll need to read a dictionary and not make up your own story lines.
Socialism.
*political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.*
Towns are social organization because they own, regulate as a community, libraries, snow plows and a host of other services that individuals cannot do for themselves.

The retired elderly cannot afford private insurance. Read history. We decided that socialism in the form of Medicare and SS was preferable to letting old folks die by the tens of thousands.

“Benevolent” insurance companies would not touch old, unprofitable retired folk. You really need to read history. But you won’t. Conservatives just write thier own .

 

It’s all still “socialism” whether it comes from the state or the feds.
I know you would rather it come from the states, but there’s a huge problem with that. The states that tend to need it the most, red states, have the poorest financial resources. So, we let all these people die because they can’t afford their portion of Medicaid cost ?

The bigger blue donor states like California payout more in taxes then they take in social benefits. That’s the feds job in reallocating funds. You may not like it, but red states seem to be caught between hating socialism and dying unnecessarily. Personally, I would rather have the public option for things like healthcare. Then, conservatives can choose to die early for the sake of their own political beliefs. Go for it.

 

Libraries do not produce a product, so cannot qualify as socialism. We go along with public ownership and maintenance of the roads because privately provided roads proved to be inadequate to the need. The same thing happened with sewage. No privately operated sewage system could handle the need to dispose of the quantities of sewage produced by cities. We have always had to provide public relief to the poor, in the ancient days of the republic with poor houses and homes for the aged. Individual cases like these do not add up to "socialism" because the vast quantity of companies are privately held and the vast quantity of products are privately produced. We have capitalism in this country. Mainly what we have today that is stifling the free enterprise system are punitive taxes and heavy regulation. Taxes today punish success and reward failure. The Code of Federal Regulations now numbers over 180 THOUSAND pages. The states limit the number of people who can be in a particular field by license laws. Cities limit the number of liquor stores using liquor licenses. None of this counts as socialism, but it does count as regulatory burden. Note that regulatory economics is its own thing, separate from and distinct from socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_economics.

You keep insisting that government run health care will be better, but I posted a very long thread showing how government run health care is worse. People aren't going to die because they can't afford their portion of Medicare, but people WILL die when the government has to decide whether to help out an old person or help out a young person because there's only so much money and so many doctors to go around.

Do you know how many people qualified for Medicare when it first started? 19 million. Today, the program covers 60 million people and accounts for 12% of the entire federal budget. Expanding Medicare to cover everyone would cost three times the entire national budget. Do you know that when Social Security started, only one in ten people reached the age of 65? Today nine out of ten do and SS accounts for 25% of all government spending. SS was never meant to be a retirement program, but that's how most Americans today see it. From Wikipedia:




And this doesn't even consider expanding Medicare!

 

OLD NEWS....LOOK AT YOUR DATES. 10 years ago.
You’re making a great case for universal healthcare. ITS CHEAPER
These are numbers driven by paying for private insurance BEFORE 2007 by those not on Medicare instead of joining. Pruvate insurance which has six times the overhead. That’s what accounts fo4 the increase in debt. The rest if your numbers aren’t real anymore. They were 2007 projections and the 3 irs has already in 2018 raised the payroll cap.
STAY CURRENT.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/social-security-changes-coming-next-year

 

It is not cheaper, ******mit!!!

Study: 'Medicare for All' Projected to Cost $32.6 Trillion

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...dicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-326-trillion

 

Read the whole article. Without Medicare for all, exoenditures from the govt alone, is expected to rise to 34.7 trillion to insure the poor and elderly and not for anyone else !

That’s 2.1 Trillion increase in taxes and WE who aren’t poor or elderly still have to pay for our own private insurance. Imagine, we can pay 2.1 trillion less for Medicare for all, and no longer pay for our own private insurance on top of it.

THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. MEDICARE FOR ALL WILL SAVE THE PUBLIC TRILLIONS !

You can read, correct !

 

If you can't understand that expanding a program that is already going broke is only going to make it go broke faster, I can't help you. No one can.

 

The way Democrats want to expand it won't work. The government could offer medicare to those that want to pay for it and make money to help support the seniors medicare system, while offering lower cost insurance for families and individuals who don't have group heath through an employer. Their premium would be based bon their net income. It would not be free.

 

If it's necessary for you to receive chemo, i.e. life saving, you'll get it.
In other words, and you know this, you can't be turned away. LOL!

Come to think of it, according to your posts, you don't know what you're
talking about.

Hey, how about Finland's healthcare crashing? Wasn't that great!

 

You didn't read the report.

Finland's economy came crashing down, Sweden is next and the Netherlands
have closed 1 out of 5 hospitals, because of the irresponsible healthcare they
can't afford.

Please, read before posting.

 

Phooey with red tape. It's meaningless. But when the government is involved
it gets bad. Always does.

Finland's economy came crashing down because they can't afford the
healthcare they have. Don't you love it? Sweden is next and the Netherlands
have closed hospital.

 

Doesn't matter. We need the government to get out of the healthcare business.
We can't afford to have our economy crash because we're irresponsible. The
private sector is the best way to go.

 

Peer review means absolutely nothing. Well, it means people who agree with
the study liked it. Nothing else.

Finland's economy came crashing down because they can't afford what they've
built.

We don't need it either.

 

I can't help but notice that the pro government healthcare fanatics are running
from the fact the Finland's economy came crashing down because of their
ridiculous healthcare system and "gimme" attitude, Sweden is on it's way down
and the Netherlands are closing hospitals because they can't afford "free" any
longer. Have we forgotten Greece? The UK isn't doing that great, either.

Does anyone care to discuss the facts or are we going to have to listen to the
same old failed rot?

Socialized medicine is bad. Private sector is good.