Read Elizabeth Warren’s lips: No middle class tax hike to fund $20T Medicare for All

Right now at work they have a "Health Matrix" where if you work at fitting into the matrix you get a cheaper health insurance rate. The insurance people started nagging me to do this and that. I opted just to pay the higher rate. I think if the government took over health care I wouldn't have that choice.

 

Well the government controls way more spending than any individual, so maybe de Blasio is a bit more on point than he realizes.

 

Something like 32 other countries, all comparable to the US, have single payer healthcare systems and the US pays about TWICE what every other nation in the world does for Healthcare. So what was said is true, it is empirical fact that many single payer systems beat us by a country mile.in regard to costs

The capacity of conservatives to cite totally irrelevant info as if it somehow proves them right when actual data proving them wrong is staring them right in the face truly boggles the mind.

 

You missed the point of my post. It's just a prediction that you'll get single payer health insurance one day (and the president that enacts it lasts longer than a term).

Just a prediction. And you guys get a ton of them wrong.

 

A single-payer healthcare system could work very well -- BUT -- everybody who is enrolled in such a system must pay their own premiums in order to be a part of it! No welfare! No "subsidies"! No bullshit! If you 'play', then you pay! And EVERYTHING, including dentistry is fully-covered! Doesn't THAT sound like what you really want?!

Think of single-payer as the biggest 'buyers' club' in the world! A system like that would have enormous power to leverage the very lowest costs, the elimination of 'co-pays', 'deductibles', and the arbitrary elimination of many prescription drugs from some insurance company's "formulary".... Why would single-payer be able to do that? TONNAGE! A single-payer system, administered by the government, would issue invitations-for-bid (IFB's) every three or five years -- all these health companies would have to BID FOR OUR BUSINESS! Quite one hell of a big change from the piecemeal, everybody-gets-screwed way we do things now....

And what about those who don't/won't/can't pay their own healthcare monthly premiums to be a part of the single-payer system? We would HAVE to keep Medicaid for them -- but we must never, ever, under any circumstances, MIX the single-payer system with anything connected to welfare!

 

Oh, one thing needs to be stated very clearly, whether it's part of Dizzy Lizzy Warren's concept or not:

If we're going to take an EARNED benefit like Medicare, which is supposed to be reserved only for people who have come to the end of their working lives, and turn it into some kind of welfare program for everybody, then at the very least we must (MUST) include one condition that DOES apply to Medicare today --

In order to qualify for Medicare today, you must be 65 years old, AND, you need to have EARNED about 40 “credits” or “quarters” by paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes while working — equal to 10 years of work — in order to get Medicare Part A services without paying premiums. Why? Because those premiums have already been covered by your payroll taxes! You know -- WORK -- what a concept....

We must have a non-negotiable way to keep bums, leeches, illegal aliens, and parasites totally OUT of any kind of "Medicare for All" system, because their sheer numbers alone would wreck the new system immediately. If they won't PAY to be a part of a new government healthcare system, then let them continue to get Medicaid!

Ever been to one of those happy celebrations where YOU are the only one buying the drinks...?

 

This is real simple from a conservatives perspective. Number 1 we want choice everyone is different and if I choose better healthcare I want it. Number 2 there is absolutely nothing government controlled that doesn't have major issues and we don't want the government in control of my healthcare PERIOD. Number 3 all the countries that have cheaper healthcare have lines and access to the medicines created by our more expensive healthcare giants that have the best R&D in the world, you kill that you kill medical advancement, you don't kill that then it'll be tons more expensive. Number 4 the only possible way it gets cheaper is reduce the cost of the current system, to do that your giving up staff and quality, see the VA as an example, government controlled, full of fraud and horrible healthcare.

 

At some point, we're going to be ram-jammed into some kind of "socialized medicine" scheme... so which one will it be? I've watched this coming ever since Bill Clinton's first-term as president, and his wife, even then, was agitating for the "1993 Healthcare Reform Package".

The "Great Recession" gave rise to Obamacare, and now radical Democrats will offer even more "free stuff" in order to be elected in 2020.

So, face it... we're going to get raped by the masses of people who don't want to work, and who don't want to have to pay for ANYTHING -- but who will vote for anyone who GIVES them something. So, now, what shall be the method of our raping? May I suggest that the best of a bad lot is the healthcare system they have in Germany. But, what works in a country of 83 million people might not work so well in our country, with a population of 330 million!

Sure, if you work for a living, your taxes are going to skyrocket, but the welfare bums couldn't care less about 'taxes' -- since they don't pay any income taxes at all anyway! And don't believe any of this horseshit about how Dizzy Lizzy Warren is only going to tax the mega-wealthy, either. Thanks to all the 'escape mechanisms' already built into the U. S. Tax Code, none of the big-rich pays anything close to a 'fair share' of taxes anyway!

Conclusion: if you're 'MIDDLE-class', you are the one who is going to be taking it right up the MIDDLE of your ass! Wait and see! Oh, and don't complain when you have to make an appointment two months in advance, and then, wait an extra two hours at the doctor's office behind a long line of welfare bums who are just as entitled to "Medicare-for-All" as YOU are, even though YOU are the only one who's paying for it!

 

No, I’m pointing out you didn’t provide a peer reviewed paper to rebut the one I gave you.

 

And you know it actually is false.

 

Why? The war on drugs has been an absolute failure and has cost this country trillions of dollars. And it’s still easier to get drugs than it is for an underage kid to buy alcohol.

 

And what you are saying is incorrect. The empirical data is quite clear.

 

Costs won't go up, its impossible under medicare for all. The government will FORCE the costs down, so that part of your statement is incorrect. Medicare already pays less than private insurance so the proof is apparent.

As for taxes, I don't believe her and frankly I think it's wrong to make only the rich pay for it. If it's medicare for all, we should spread the costs as much as we can. Granted, those who are poor and struggling have nothing to pay so that's just what it is. But the middle class should pay something to get coverage this way.

We pay either way anyway, so how it's funded doesn't really matter at all.

 

Giggles.
Go analyze your unanalyzed "emperical data".
Have fun.

 

Those are the entirety of costs, just reimbursements?

Is the HHS budget included?
Are physical infrastructure costs included?
Are tech infrastructure costs included?
Are salaries included?
Are retirement benefits included?
Do you know?

 

Show the analysys that establishes the causal relationship in your assertion.

Data must be analyzed.
What is the structure, prospective, retrospective, cohort matched, controlled?
Probably should read your study and find out

 

Just a general comment about Medicare; anyone who has paid FICA during their lives has contributed to funding Medicare. So when people get to a certain age they are eligible for Medicare. HOWEVER!!!...Medicare only pays a small percentage of the total costs! So then you need to BUY Medicare Plan B for about $160/month for additional coverage but this only covers maybe 80% of the total costs. Then you need to buy private supplemental insurance that costs around $170/month to 'maybe' cover 100% of the costs?? And, we also need to buy prescription coverage which is about $80/month. SO...I'll do the math for everyone...$150+$170+$80=$400/month. No matter all the FICA I have contributed over the years, on top of this contribution, I also now pay $400/month, to receive complete coverage...or about $4,800/year.

What I don't know is in the political arena of Medicare for all;

Do these plans provide 100% coverage or must people come up with $4,800/year?

What happens to old people like me already paying this extra $400/month...does this go away?

 

I actually did. Everyone here saw it.

 

Will the government "FORCE" scarce resources to pop into existence in order to reduce the cost of production of health care?

Or will the government simply "FORCE" providers to provide care at a PRICE that is independent their fixed and variable costs? If that's the case, then it will only work until the price dips below the variable cost of production. When that happens the resources presently available will run out and it won't matter what the price is, there won't be any to buy anyway. You can't continue to make products if you end up with less in return than the value of the resources you started with. People will simply use those resources for something that does create value, or they'll stop using those resources all together. You can't force people to stop assessing the opportunity cost of their own labor.

The reason why insurance companies spend so much damned money collecting data is that that knowledge is absolutely necessary to price the care they pay for. You can't just eliminate that process and make things cheaper. What you do is make things less efficient, and less efficient things are always more costly. Sure, in the short run a single payer system can mandate a price, but the effect in the long run will be that the resources used to create the products sold at that price will run out. That's because the government cannot (or in some cases is not willing to) adjust price fast enough in the short run to mitigate changes in resource supply. That means the resources don't go to the people who need them the most. They go to the people that get to them first until they are all gone.

Doctors, for example, are a finite resource. Good doctors are even more scarce. The demand for doctors, however, is infinite. If you price doctors below the value of what it takes to produce doctors the demand for doctors will surge, and the supply of doctors will shrink. The same goes for medical supplies, medical equipment, medical research, medical infrastructure, hell, even band-aids. The price has to jive with the supply and demand curves, and those are in a constant state of flux. When the government fails to react to those changes the result isn't ever MORE supply than needed. It's always less, because supply is finite and demand is infinite.

 

No, that's called coercion. It's not necessarily civilized at all.

 

I did. That’s why I pointed out your post was false. You are free to post a peer reviewed paper that refutes mine, but we both know you can’t do that.

 

Sorry, but “Nuh uh” is not a rebuttal of the empirical data.

 

Riiiiight, and Fauxcahontas is a Native American, too.

 

You know that you didn’t, and so does everyone else.

 

Well, you still do it and will continue to.