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

I guess I was wrong about you. I thought perhaps a thorough explanation might at least allow you to understand, and I see that was never a possibility for you. Gave it a shot anyway.
I don't think they have developed a treatment yet for the inability to comprehend when you don't want to. God forbid, that often means admitting to yourself that you were wrong.
So- I think you're stuck. If you will only be happy in a world where everything is free for everyone- and all you have to do is find someone to pay for it. Good luck with that.

 

The lefties want to give 3 - 4 trillion dollars to the government every year to run a healthcare administration system. What could go wrong ?? Think DMV.

 

We know, empirically, that single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost as our system.

 

As pointed out, it iisn't even just morality, as other first world nations expend FAR less on healthcare even while treating essentially all their citizens.

I know of no moral foundation for allowing peope to die when it's been demonstrated to be unnecessary for any reason.

Besides, I just assume that a lot of people in America are Christians.

 

I cite everything. You don't read them. BTW you make my case for me by pointing out that foreign countries with government run healthcare systems will not pay for US development costs in drug prices.

https://www.bain.com/insights/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-drug/

https://www.bain.com/contentassets/...ae149debd/bb_addressing_innovation_divide.pdf

 

That ^^^ is completely untrue.

Atlas, Scott. Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six-Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost (Hoover Institution Press Publication) (Kindle Locations 188-203). Hoover Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

 

No, think Medicare for all.

I'm not saying that is the system we want. But, Medicare has been shown to be highly effective and with low overhead.

With Medicare for all, providers are private enterprise.

With our system, we give that money to for-profit corporations, thus dedicated to maximizing the number of your dollars they don't pay out for care. What could go wrong??

 

Medicare has low overhead ?? That's ridiculous. Next you will be claiming that Medicare has a low fraud rate.

All the Democrats acknowledge a cost of $3T - $4T per year.

 

Drug costs is a separate issue. Nobody is suggesting we federalize the drug industry.

So, your post isn't even about "Medicare for all".

As an aside, I'd mention that Bain is in the business of maximizing the profits of the corporations who are their clients. They promise their clients higher profits as the product of their service.

They are NOT comeing from the point of view of designing a cost effective healthcare system.

It's no surprise they search for cases that appear to justify higher drug prices.

 

Most folks with disabilities are on Medicaid already. Some have Medicare. Few are on private health insurance or paying out of their pocket.

1. Melissa Francis (yes she works at Fox, but seems like a thoughtful Republican) researched the IRS receipts, the budget office, etc., and reported that even if they taxed 100% on everyone making $200,000+ and took 100% of the profits from all corporations, it wouldn't amount to nearly enough to pay for Medicare for All. They would have to tax the middle class enormously. Which is why Warren doesn't want to answer the question.

2. Even if it could somehow be paid for, you can't have open borders AND Medicare for All. Even liberals I talk to admit that common sense dictates you can't have both.

3. I am curious who this idea would even appeal to? Senior citizens already are on Medicare and won't go for it for fear of how their Medicare might be diminished if it tried to cover everyone. Also, it rankles, after they have paid into it their whole lives. Disabled won't go for it either (see above). The poor are mostly on Medicaid already and are pretty much happy with it. It's already been established that people on private insurance are in large part happy and don't want to lose it. So, seems like it would be a pretty small slice of the population that would benefit, right? I think mostly recent college grads who aren't making enough to comfortably buy insurance, but don't quite quality for Medicaid?

 

The word "rationing" gets used because of it's negative associations, not because it is an accurate description of what is happening here or anywhere else.

If you don't like that term, then get those who hate Medicare for all to use a different term.

 

Empirically proven to be true........https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

refuted with peer reviewed empirical evidence.

 

It's about drug availability which is what you asked about. They are explaining why Europeans do not benefit from the drugs developed and FDA approved in the US. If you have anything to show that for example Germans aren't harmed by this then let's see it.

Classic - when you have no argument attack the source. Carry on.

 

I absolutely do understand where you're coming from.

It's not as if I haven't read Ayn Rand and the rest. I understand and like capitalism.

The problem is that your argument doesn't make any sense.

You simply can't point out ANY legitimate benefit traceable to our system of denying healthcare to those who can't afford it.

Telling me about how you would help someone ismeaningless wrt the issue at hand. I'm glad you would, but it's well known that a one-one approach to this problem is an absolute and total failure. It's not even CLOSE.

You talk about "teaching" people by denying them care!! You suggest our full population can afford the for profit healthcare system we've created. You've suggested that for-profit companies will address the problem - even though there can't be a profit in it.

You just aren't able to support this nonsense.

Other first world countries are doing it. You're desperately trying to defend our seriously expensive failure in healthcare distribution.

 

Empirically people die from rationed health care.

The WHO assessments are garbage. If you actually believe that Turkey supplies better health care than the US why aren't you travelling there for medical treatments.

 

The US rations healthcare. It’s empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care at a fraction the cost of ours. This is reality.

 

US consumers spend ~ $4T per year on healthcare. The US government rations healthcare in the Medicare and Medicaid systems which are subsidized by jacking up prices charged to those who have private insurance.

 

Healthcare is rationed by private insurance, and private hospitals. It’s empirical fact single payer systems provide better Carr at a fraction of our cost. You are not going to get around that fact. This is reality.

 

They just don't get it.

 

It's breathtaking.

 

Too funny. How much do you claim that government will spend per year supplying healthcare to the US population (and all the illegal aliens) if we convert to Medicare for All ?? Your answer should be as a percentage of GDP. I can already hear the crickets.

 

Reality will continue to trump your ideology, no matter how badly you wish otherwise


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...re-for-all-bernie-sanders-cost-estimates.html

 

This is nonsense. It ignores the dollars we're already paying directly to care providers, to insurance companies, for copays, and through taxes that supports hospiatls, etc., where people are getting the most expensive care we have but can't pay.

We already raise the money for the healthcare. The ONLY issue is how it is distributed, plus the cost of those who can't pay for care. Even then, it lowers healthcare costs to have people staying healthy. Bad health outcomes are super expensive and come from lack of early detection and failure to properly treat.

EVERY other first world country is expending LESS than we do on health care while treating their full population.

These fake financial analyses are no more than political hack jobs. We don't need vast new dollars.

As for Warren, the cost and funding methods for any system is HIGHLY dependent on the specifics. For example, Medicare doesn't cover everything, and people can then buy additional coverage if they want to and can afford it. That affects the cost of Medicare by a LOT.

Absolutely nobody is interested in open borders. See the bipartisan immigration reform act of 2013. It passed the Senate and would have passed the House if Boehner hadn't blocked it. It included multiple methods of preventing entry and protected jobs. It had $40B for the Mexico border. That came from committees of equal representation in the House and Senate. It was backed by Rubio and McCain, to name just two of the Republicans.

Healthcare is a huge issue for all of middle America. And, a very large number of employees have families and don't get insurance from their employer.

Obamacare helped some of this, but Trump and Republicans are working to limit or kill advances. So, pretty much everyone has cause for concern. Remember they voted more than 50 times to kill our healthcare system without even having a replacement of ANY KIND!

 

Other first world countries that have healthcare for all spend LESS on healthcare, not more.

 

That's not overhead.

Roughly speaking, Medicare overhead is cost of management and insurance overhead is the cost of management plus insurance company profit.