# Healthcare for all would cost $32 TRILLION over 10 years.



## deanrd (Oct 12, 2018)

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion. 

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

 Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...




got it

someone stated an opinion, you heard it, you posted it.


with no facts to back you, or him, up


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



  So why did leftist paradise Mexifornia shit can the idea because it was just to damn expensive?


----------



## Kat (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...





You think leaving the c out makes it any different. Only fools you.
Plus what a lie you seemed to parrot all over the forum. No one wants anyone to die.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Oct 12, 2018)

Have your State pass Universal Healthcare and if they refuse then you might want to ask why on the State level they refuse to do this?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



LMAO. You don’t understand basic finance and accounting I see. Is this Alexandria Ocasio Cortez?


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

In other advanced democracies, healthcare-for-all is provided at a substantially-lower percentage of GDP or per capita spending than the US spends on its haphazard profit-based insurance and public/private healthcare services.   They've decided a decent quality of life shouldn't require having to decide between needed medical care and other expenditures.

On the bright side, people in the US seldom see doctors anymore - they see LLC's.  They will pass their new tax savings on to their patients, right?  Just kidding.  The fuckers know there is usually no substitute good for the healthcare they provide, and they benefit from asymmetry of information, so why wouldn't they charge enough to support an extravagant lifestyle?


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.



Medicare for all means I end up dead very soon. I’ve gotbprobsbky 25-30 years left in my life if things don’t change. Under Medicare for all it’s probably 2-3 years.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


We would save hundreds of billions by not paying the profit vampires in the insurance industry.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.
> ...


What makes you say that?


----------



## tycho1572 (Oct 12, 2018)

Rderp posting another example of him reaching a conclusion on incomplete information.


----------



## tycho1572 (Oct 12, 2018)

I’d be fired if I tried that nonsense at work.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> What makes you say that?



The fact that I would not be willing to use a Medicare for All program, and therefore would be unable to seek medical care or get prescription medications, even when I need it. Which is fairly regularly considering some of my medical issues.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.
> ...



That's a cute story.

How does that work?   Every time someone goes to a doctor, who would have previously gone without care, it takes 3 months off your life?


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> How does that work?   Every time someone goes to a doctor, who would have previously gone without care, it takes 3 months off your life?



That works by me not being willing to take unconstitutional and immoral services from the Government. That includes Social Security and any form of medical care, including Medicare. 

With my medical issues I figure I’d last about 2.5 to 3 years without medical care considering my personal medical issues.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > How does that work?   Every time someone goes to a doctor, who would have previously gone without care, it takes 3 months off your life?
> ...



There ya go!   Do you pay unconstitutional and immoral taxes?  Or would the failure to do so force you to take government-funded prison living?  I've never been in the pen, myself, but I understand they have socialistic immoral healthcare.   

What's a paragon to do?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...




How will the savings be trillions if people live longer? What happens to social security?


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...



Hardworking immigrants from Latin America will pay it.  You don't think you're lazy-ass grandkids are going to do it, do you?  Vote for expanded legal immigration!


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you say that?
> ...


Ah, so suicide then.

Nothing to do with medicare.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> There ya go!   Do you pay unconstitutional and immoral taxes?



I do pay taxes. The US Constitution does give the Government the power to tax. I seriously disagree with the current tax system but it is what it is. Besides, me employer will not stop taking taxes out of my paycheck.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


He's going to commit suicide if medicare for all gets passed.  See his post to me.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Ah, so suicide then.



I wouldn’t call it suicide. The health of my Soul is more important to me than the health of my body.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...



He does seem a little depressed.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so suicide then.
> ...


Refusing medical care to point of death is suicide.  Nothing less.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > joaquinmiller said:
> ...


Says he will refuse to use it.  Suicide by refusing treatment until death.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Refusing medical care to point of death is suicide.  Nothing less.



Refusing to engage in an unconstitutional, illegal and immoral Government program is not suicide. Engaging in such a program is immoral and I’d rather be dead than do so.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so suicide then.
> ...



Would the health of your soul allow you to buy needed care on the black market?

The funnier part of your scenario is your assumption as to how long you'd live, with or without medical care.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Refusing medical care to point of death is suicide.  Nothing less.
> ...


Call it whatever you want, it's suicide.  

I don't believe you anyway.  You will not die just avoid using medicare.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


Yea but consider we are already going to spend that without universal coverage for all. We spend more than we should and get less than we should.

We could do things right, spend less and cover everyone for less than we spend now


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



The least he could do is start smoking.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> He does seem a little depressed.



Not at all. Just extremely frustrated with the immorality and stupidity of modern America.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> Would the health of your soul allow you to buy needed care on the black market?
> 
> The funnier part of your scenario is your assumption as to how long you'd live, with or without medical care.



No it would not. 6-8 months to lose my vision from my glaucoma and likely less than three years to have the heart attack or grand mal seizure that would likely kill me.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> The least he could do is start smoking.



No smoking. No drinking. No illicit drugs. Ever.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > The least he could do is start smoking.
> ...


Just suicide.

It's quicker anyway.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 12, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Medicare for all means I end up dead very soon. I’ve gotbprobsbky 25-30 years left in my life if things don’t change. Under Medicare for all it’s probably 2-3 years.



Under Communism, the plan of the Nazicrats, you are merely a part. You are interchangeable with thousands of other like parts. To the rulers of the fascist democrats, your death has no meaning. No person outside of the elite has any value. The job you perform on behalf of the reich will be filled by another part, equally unimportant to the ruling elite. Healthcare is simply a calculation, will it benefit the rulers more to prolong your life, or to replace you? 

Life has no value to the democrats. The masses exist only to serve the elite.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> [
> We would save hundreds of billions by not paying the profit vampires in the insurance industry.



And far more by letting the "useless eaters" die, eh Nazi?


----------



## Anathema (Oct 12, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Just suicide.



Show me what a Man will kill or die for and I’ll show you what He cares about. Sow me what he won’t kill or die for and I’ll show you what he doesn’t care about.


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So what they said was


Who is they?


----------



## deanrd (Oct 12, 2018)

WillHaftawaite said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...


 We do know that Republicans want to end healthcare for millions of people. And we know the Republicans want to do that to pay for the tax cuts for billionaires. Those are just facts. We don’t really dispute those.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 12, 2018)

deanrd said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



We do know....


We do know...



no, you DON'T know....

you just bleat out what your shepherd sings


----------



## deanrd (Oct 12, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...


 Life expectancy has been going down in the Appalachian area as infant mortality rates go up. 
 Obviously Republicans dying is saving us money.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 13, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



I would guess he has not met his survival instinct face-to-face.  That puts a non-academic spin on mortality.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 13, 2018)

Healthcare _will_ get paid for, one way or another. There _will_ be costs to humanity for doctors, medicine, transportation, etc. It can all be done in a humanitarian fashion or to the profit of an avaricious few.


----------



## dblack (Oct 13, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> Healthcare _will_ get paid for, one way or another. There _will_ be costs to humanity for doctors, medicine, transportation, etc. It can all be done in a humanitarian fashion or to the profit of an avaricious few.



It can all be controlled by the state, or not.


----------



## sparky (Oct 13, 2018)

it can be regulated by the state

~S~


----------



## dblack (Oct 13, 2018)

sparky said:


> it can be regulated by the state
> 
> ~S~



Oh yes, "regulated", that's the euphemism I was looking for. My bad.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Oct 13, 2018)

deanrd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


You are one hateful partisan bitch................never miss an opportunity to attack in any form against those who disagree with you.

It is people like you that will end this Republic.........should you be allowed to again gain power......You need to go back to being Dems like JFK........so you can be negotiated with again........and compromise can once again be the model in this country.................Given your side has gone so far left.............There WILL BE NO NEGOTIATION ANYMORE.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 13, 2018)

84% of med school students carry (State) student loan debt, which they will hopefully re-pay when they become licensed-to-practice by the State.  Some will become hospitalists, in private hospitals, which would not survive without Medicare patients and payments.

Helluva way to achieve a 'market-based' healthcare system.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 13, 2018)

dblack said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Healthcare _will_ get paid for, one way or another. There _will_ be costs to humanity for doctors, medicine, transportation, etc. It can all be done in a humanitarian fashion or to the profit of an avaricious few.
> ...


...or, it could be some blend, or there could even be original ideas.
In any case, resources are here for people, not the other way around.


----------



## dblack (Oct 13, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



You mean you want to get your hands on other people's resources.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 13, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> I would guess he has not met his survival instinct face-to-face.  That puts a non-academic spin on mortality.



I have seen the black-cloaked specter first hand. He doesn’t scare me anywhere near as much as living in a Socialist hellhole such as the one we appear to be headed towards.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 15, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


So this is like the $2,500 savings from Obamacare,  right?

$32 Trillion only sounds like a lot....lol


----------



## otto105 (Oct 29, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...




Trumpcare will cost 42 trillion during that time.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Oct 30, 2018)

Anathema said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > How does that work?   Every time someone goes to a doctor, who would have previously gone without care, it takes 3 months off your life?
> ...


RIP then dumbo.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


$32 trillion only sounds like a lot of money.  

Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...


ZOMG!! You're a genius!! Let's cut out the car companies and give everyone a free car!!


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 30, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


If you think insurance companies provide healthcare you are dumber than I thought.

And I already thought you were pretty damn stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 7, 2018)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



$32 trillion is based on what we spend now but in theory if we had  a far cheaper single payer system like used in Europe/Canada we could use the savings to pay off the national debt in 10-15 years. Since we are already socialist in health industry we might as well have the most  efficient socialist system. 

From Medicare for all to capitalism would be easier we'd just keep lowering premium payments and raising payments for service.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



There is no room for original ideas in a government solution. We vote on it, majority rules and we're stuck with whatever they want.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 1, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



The 32 trillion figure is predicated on cutting payments to providers 40%.

The Congress votes every year whether to cut payments to providers and they have never done so. Not one time.

I'm sure there are other flaws in the calculations that have led this figure quoted to be way too low, but right off the bat that number should be just over 53 trillion.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 1, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



Where are the savings?


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 1, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...



Savings that would quickly evaporate due to union represented claims adjusters being paid more than the private market would bear and receiving unsustainable Cadillac pension plans.

Removing the need to maintain a fiscally responsible combined ratio, efficiency would decline further eliminating any reduction in costs.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 1, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


No, we would be taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 1, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.


----------



## dblack (Jan 1, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> No, we would be taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation.



Not if you're talking about "Medicare For All".

It's a popular myth that Medicare is government run insurance, but it's not. It's farmed out to private insurance companies. That's right, they're subbing it out to the same "profit vampires" selling private insurance. 

So, if "Medicare For All" is supposed to be an expansion of the existing Medicare program to cover everyone, it wont be "taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation". It will be entrenching them ever deeper.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 2, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Why would costs go up?  Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.


----------



## Aponi (Jan 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aponi (Jan 2, 2019)

no need to worry democrats like cortez would just x3 raise taxes and destroy or economy


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



You know how much I value your opinion


----------



## dblack (Jan 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



And you think that's a good thing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2019)

dblack said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



He does: Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba


----------



## Third Party (Jan 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


God I love sarcasm! Every time I hear how much money we are going to save, I end up counting how much money we lost.


----------



## g5000 (Jan 2, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...


Annual U.S. Healthcare Spending Hits $3.8 Trillion

What is $3.8 trillion x 10?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 2, 2019)

dblack said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Single payer government run healthcare.  Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are.  Direct payments to providers.


----------



## dblack (Jan 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Then you need to stop using "Medicare for All" as the rallying cry. Because Medicare does none of that.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jan 3, 2019)

Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2019)

Vandalshandle said:


> Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.



And all that money is funneled to insurance companies. Just like now, except the government decides which insurance company you'll be paying.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 6, 2019)

Vandalshandle said:


> Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.


So how much do beneficiaries have to pay to afford a system that will cost upwards of 5.3 trillion dollars a year. There are just over 300 million americans. You do the math.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jan 6, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.
> ...



First, I see no link to your 5.3 trillion dollars. Second, every industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, except the US. I suspect that they don't need magic wands to do it.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 6, 2019)

Kat said:


> No one wants anyone to die.



And yet everyone will.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 6, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


I make a motion for a more market friendly approach that solves simple poverty through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  Having recourse to an income enables greater market participation in our economy by more people.  The law of large numbers should work for us.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 6, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> I make a motion for a more market friendly approach that solves simple poverty through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.



How does the market direct unemployment compensation when the amount, who gets paid, and for how long, are all decisions of the state?  The market has no influence.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I make a motion for a more market friendly approach that solves simple poverty through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> ...


I agree to disagree. Employment is the will of either party in our market based economy. 

The objective is to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment as a more market friendly form of social safety net.  

Unemployment compensation that is one dollar an hour per hour equivalent less than the minimum wage, will work to provide market based metrics.


----------



## Slashsnake (Jan 7, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.
> ...



Reduce the cost by supplying healthcare to taxpayers and children... Those on welfare don't get the benefit and should pay out of their own pocket. You shouldn't be able to drain the system and benefit from it too.


----------



## MarathonMike (Jan 7, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



Dean Dean Dean.....


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2019)

Vandalshandle said:


> Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.



Yep. And the money will still end up in the hands of the insurance industry. Very little changes.


----------



## Votto (Jan 7, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



No kidding.

I was also watching TV and the History channel had this episode that essentially proves that aliens seeded life on earth.

I just love watching TV.  It never seems to lie.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 7, 2019)

Vandalshandle said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



If you read the report that was out out showing that Medicare for all will cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years, that number is predicated on a 40% cut in payments to providers.

There is mechanism under the current Medicare system that allows Congress to cut payments to provider, but because providers threaten to stop treating patients with reduced payments, Congress has NEVER (not once) cut payments to providers.

When you consider that and other unrealistic projections within the Medicare For All plan, it's clear that Medicare For All will cost much more than 32 trillion over 10 years. Looking logically at the actual costs, 53 trillion 0ver 10 years is my projection (and it's probably low).

I'm trying to remind people that 3.2 trillion is an unreasonably low number, but I guess we 'll see what it actually costs soon.

Still it's painful either way, so feel free to show me the how just over 328 million people are going to come up with even 3.2 trillion dollars a year...


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 7, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 7, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference _this_ time?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 7, 2019)

dblack said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Coercive systems always rot from the inside out.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 7, 2019)

dblack said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


What makes you think it would be coercive?  It would just be a benefit you get for being a citizen.  Paid for with your taxes just like road maintenance and airport security.


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Taxes are coercive.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 7, 2019)

dblack said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Ah, you're one of _those_.  

Have a nice night.


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Good answer, good answer!


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2019)

Medicare for All will be the same thing as Medicare, the same thing as ACA - a government scheme to funnel tax money to their favored corporate "partners".


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jan 7, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



I hope to god that all the countries in Europe don't find out that they have not been able to afford their universal health care since WW2!!!!!!!!


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 8, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



you need a certain amount of employees to handle a certain amount of claims, no matter if one company is administering the claims of multiple companies doing it. I believe your overstating the savings due to possible duplication, while simultaneously ignoring the additional costs which arise when public sector employees do the work less efficiently than private sector employees.

To have a billion dollar worth of insurance CEO's you have to have a 1,000 insurance employees making 1 million or more. Like most folks erroneously chiming in on this issue, I question whether you really understand the mathematics involved when we're talking about economics on this scale.

In addition the "exorbitant" nature of many CEO salaries are driven by stock options they receive, the value of which exponentially increase the amount of their pay.

In a government run system you won't have stock options inflating CEO salaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to savings because stock options are not  costs to the insurer.

It gets worse because stock market returns increase the value of premiums collected before they are paid out. A government run system will never be funded sufficiently to have claims reserves, so the money paid in will be instantly paid out without making any interest in the interim, which eliminates a means by which private insurers make their premiums stretch to pay claims.I

Finally, you reference golden parachutes. I question whether the cost of a handful of favorable buyouts to CEO's would ultimately be a greater cost than retirement benefits to thousands of employees substantially more lucrative than what would be paid to private sector employees, especially as the value of these employee pensions multiplies exponentially over time.

Solving the dividend problem is even simpler. Mutual companies run like any other companies, but they don't pay dividends. Why not simply limit the market to Mutual companies rather than  scrapping the whole system?

Even better why doesn't the government create their own company and compete in the open market. If their model truly has the massive cost savings you allege wouldn't it be easy for the government run company to corner the market very quickly?


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 9, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



If you are referring to mutual insurance companies many certainly do pay dividends.

The basics of insurance dividends


----------



## Slashsnake (Jan 9, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Why would there need to be set premiums, rate negotiations, claims, and disputes? 

People will carry a healthcare card with a specific number on it to identify them, which gets put into the computer system - you can automate this entire system. Need blood work? The receptionist places your number into the computer and the government pays it, and then you're given a receipt. Will it get abused? Maybe... But so does every other sector the government controls. 

There's no negotiating prices with Uncle Sam, the doctor's office gets paid what they get paid - if the doctor's office doesn't like it, they either go out of business, or they're told to go fuck themselves.

What is there to dispute? Again, the doctor's office gets paid what the government wants them to get paid - there's no negotiations, no networking, so there's no need for disputes. The government will just pay out whatever claims the doctor's office sends them.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 9, 2019)

You know what would save even more money?  The government getting out of the health care industry altogether.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 9, 2019)

You know what would save even more money?  The government getting out of the health care industry altogether.


----------



## Meathead (Jan 9, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture.


This is where I stopped reading.


----------



## dblack (Jan 9, 2019)

Slashsnake said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Heh.. seriously??



> There's no negotiating prices with Uncle Sam, the doctor's office gets paid what they get paid - if the doctor's office doesn't like it, they either go out of business, or they're told to go fuck themselves.



LOL - or they lobby government for increases. That's the kind of world you all are trying to create, a world where our income depends not on pleasing customers, but on how much political influence we can bring to bear. No thanks.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 10, 2019)

Slashsnake said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Are you aware that Medicare already has a high rate of fraud, fraud which drives the cost of health care up?

Medicare also doesn't cover everything. The current projected cost of Medicare for all is predicated on the idea that not every treatment people want or doctors are willing to provide is covered. If you plan is to cover everything you can double or triple that cost, minimally.

Since the majority of treatment is palliative (makes you feel better) and not curative this won't save any money in the long run. In fact, as people's expectations change it's likely to drive costs up.

Medicare already sets rates, but if you set the rates too low you remove the incentive for some people to become doctors, they might become lawyers instead (for example). Your system doesn't work if there aren't doctors to provide the health care, particularly specialists (ie. surgeons, etc.).

Of course human nature suggests that unscrupulous doctors will augment their income with fraud and enterprising doctors will augment their income by maximizing the volume of patients through their practice by decreasing face to face contact and time with patients.

You anger is noteworthy. Solving tough challenges is hard. Of course for every complex problem there is a simple solution, which is usually wrong.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 10, 2019)

debbiedowner said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).

Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.


----------



## dblack (Jan 10, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).



So, is everyone with a 401k evil? Or just those who have money in insurance stock?



MedfordMan said:


> Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.



It's important to understand that Medicare doesn't avoid private insurance companies. In fact, the top insurance companies are getting most of the revenue from it.

Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits

And we're not talking about supplemental insurance here. Medicare is actually farmed out to these companies. It's a corporate feeding trough. It's hard to see how "Medicare for All" would be any different, despite their claims.

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 10, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> You know what would save even more money?  The government getting out of the health care industry altogether.


applied socialism actually makes command economic sense for the military.


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 10, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



You had no link on the above post.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 10, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



Outlaw health insurance.  Watch the cost of health care plummet.

Nevermind.  That will never happen.  The American people are brainwashed by Blue Cross Blue Shield and their clever marketing.  Health Insurance is apparently a necessity.  It's the same reason we celebrate Halloween.  Halloween is neither an American holiday or a Christian holiday.  Yet we celebrate it because some marketeer found a way to make money.  As long as Americans are suckers for health insurance, the price of medical services will continue to rise.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 10, 2019)

debbiedowner said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


I was referring to your link.

I didn't attach a link.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 10, 2019)

dblack said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).
> ...


I don't think shareholders are evil, but the tone of Crepitus' (ie. the other poster) post suggests he\she thinks share holders are evil.

I realize that your bound and determined to keep  makIng the point that Medicare currently uses private insurers to administer the program.

I don't dispute that argument,  but that point has been made and that point is not necessary to my argument, which is not matter who administers  payment to health care providers, there are costs that remain constant.

Universal health care is expensive and there is no magic way to create savings that change that reality.

Ultimately, the only question for those who want health care is how do we pay for it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Are you really this Uninformed?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 10, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



Do us a favor and play on your closest freeway.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



LOLOLOL

$32 Trillion "only sounds like a lot"

Lolol


----------



## dblack (Jan 11, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> I realize that your bound and determined to keep  makIng the point that Medicare currently uses private insurers to administer the program.



My apologies it's tiresome, but they're selling this Medicare for All business as though it will take for-profit insurance companies out of the equation, and that's just not how Medicare works.



> Universal health care is expensive and there is no magic way to create savings that change that reality.
> 
> Ultimately, the only question for those who want health care is how do we pay for it.



Agreed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 12, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...



Health care for all (Medicare for all)  would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 13, 2019)

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly.


----------



## dblack (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> ...



Special Ed is it again: "capitalistic price and quality controls" - LOL


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

dblack said:


> : "capitalistic price and quality controls" - LOL



but the liberal was afraid to say why its laughable. What did the liberal learn from his fear.


----------



## surada (Feb 10, 2022)

WillHaftawaite said:


> got it
> 
> someone stated an opinion, you heard it, you posted it.
> 
> ...


Most of the civilized world has universal healthcare, maybe the US is just too stupid to figure it out.


----------



## Meathead (Feb 10, 2022)

surada said:


> Most of the civilized world has universal healthcare, maybe the US is just too stupid to figure it out.


Six of the most notable countries without universal health care are Muslim and two are the largest in economies in Africa, SA and Nigeria. Are you suggesting they are "uncivilized"?









						10 Countries Without Universal Healthcare
					

10 Notable Countries That Are Still Without Universal Healthcare. Most countries in the developed world have some form of universal healthcare system, but these countries do not.




					www.worldatlas.com


----------



## surada (Feb 10, 2022)

Meathead said:


> Six of the most notable countries without universal health care are Muslim and two are the largest in economies in Africa, SA and Nigeria. Are you suggesting they are "uncivilized"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Gulf States and Israel have universal healthcare.


----------



## Meathead (Feb 10, 2022)

surada said:


> The Gulf States and Israel have universal healthcare.


That wasn't the question. Are Muslim and black countries uncivilized?


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 10, 2022)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


First off they always lie about the costs---
Secondly if free---people would waste more 
Three the scammers would run with it...

Stop expecting the taxpayers to carry you around.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 10, 2022)

Meathead said:


> Six of the most notable countries without universal health care are Muslim and two are the largest in economies in Africa, SA and Nigeria. Are you suggesting they are "uncivilized"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That isn't what he said or even implied.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 10, 2022)

Every time there is this discussion of "cost" for healthcare it seems to be forgotten that we already pay for it now. The cost is there. The question is humanely providing it at the best price. France, for example, has healthcare at least as good as the U.S at only a little more than half the cost per person served.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 10, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> First off they always lie about the costs---
> Secondly if free---people would waste more
> Three the scammers would run with it...
> 
> Stop expecting the taxpayers to carry you around.


Stop allowing big pharma and lobbyists to lead us around.


----------



## surada (Feb 10, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> First off they always lie about the costs---
> Secondly if free---people would waste more
> Three the scammers would run with it...
> 
> Stop expecting the taxpayers to carry you around.


Yet it works in so many successful countries that have a healthy workforce and high standard of living.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 10, 2022)

Meathead said:


> That wasn't the question. Are Muslim and black countries uncivilized?



She never answers a direct question directly.


----------



## surada (Feb 10, 2022)

JustAGuy1 said:


> She never answers a direct question directly.


It depends on the country. Have you traveled much?


----------



## dblack (Feb 10, 2022)

deanrd said:


> So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.
> 
> So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.
> 
> ...


Sorry. I don't want someone like Donald Trump in charge of my health care.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 10, 2022)

surada said:


> It depends on the country. Have you traveled much?



This is precisely what I was talking about, you make it too easy.


----------



## surada (Feb 10, 2022)

dblack said:


> Sorry. I don't want someone like Donald Trump in charge of my health care.


It's single payer, private delivery not government health care.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 10, 2022)

dblack said:


> Sorry. I don't want someone like Donald Trump in charge of my health care.



Nope, you want someone you trust and love.


----------



## dblack (Feb 10, 2022)

surada said:


> It's single payer, private delivery not government health care.


LOL - of course. My bad.


----------



## dblack (Feb 10, 2022)

Doctor Trump will see you now ...


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 13, 2022)

Save over ten trillion dollars; do healthcare the French way.


----------

