Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whether such as system would be successful would depend on how reimbursement rates are determined. If reimbursement rates are too low, then doctors and hospitals will pad their bills, reduce services, and use other means detrimental to patient care to increase their revenue.All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.
Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future
TrueThis thread is the very definition of Fake News.
The Sander's campaign released a document describing how Medicare for All could be financed. A 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four was one of nine options.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/down...4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file
Which is about half what most people are paying now for private health insurance.
This thread is the very definition of Fake News.
Can you explain how so, or was yours a fake statement?
The Democratic Debate Over 'Medicare For All' And Middle-Class Taxes, Explained
It's misleading to just say taxes are going up. Because those increases will be more than offset by the complete removal of healthcare premiums, co-pays and minimal prescription drug costs. Leaving out the full statement is creating Fake News.
It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?
You don't smart so good, do you...
How many times has the banking industry needed bailed out? We should trust private industry?
Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?
Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.
Nobody pays it.
Bill: $9000
Insurance: pays $3800.
You owe: $240.
No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.
It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.
I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.
The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.
Nobody has better healthcare than the US when it comes to quality.
I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. In fact, was just there yesterday to get checked out. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner.
It's not just patients, it's doctors as well. They either come here from their socialized medical care countries to make some real money, or come here, get educated, and never return home. So because of our system, we draw the best talent from around the world.
My sister works there as well. She can testify to the amount of Canadian patients at the Clinic looking for some relief that they couldn't get in their socialized medical care country. In fact, all our northern hospitals have Canadian patients.
So you can't tell me of another country that's problem-less either. They all have either extremely slow services, low quality equipment, medications we quit using decades ago, or outright refuse to treat some people. Nobody has a perfect medial system, including ours.
Not at all true.
The US is ranked something like 29th in health care.
Medical tourism FROM the US is 100 times higher than people coming to the US for medical care.
The only people coming to the US for medical care are the very wealthy who want elite care.
That is not what most people in the US get.
The US has over 100,000 a year dying from medical malpractice, and is one of the worst in the world for health care quality.
The fact we pay physicians more does not mean we get better quality health care.
Government was only responsible for the real estate collapse in that they had repealled Glass-Steagall, and allowed banks to make incredibly risky loans to each other, knowing the government would then be forced to bail them out.
Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing bad mortgages.
Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
What caused the collapse was bundling the bad mortgages into derivatives that then were traded as stocks, as if they were of far greater value than they really were, both allowing banks to pretend they had more assets than they really did, and to essentially force government to secure risky stock investments the government would not have had to secure if Glass-Steagall had not been repealled.
The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.
It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default, and that was NOT their fault. Blaming individual home buyers is totally incorrect.
Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
That's hilarious!!
The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.
Refinancing during the growth phase of a bubble is easy.
It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default
You mean that mortgages that were current at 1% interest and in default at 5% interest were good mortgages?
and that was NOT their fault.
People who took out loans they couldn't afford are entirely blameless?
The mortage defaults were never allowed to refinance.
The bubble busting made their home not worth enough for them to qualify.
They owed more than the home was worth.
But they still would have kept making their old payments because they would want to protect their down payment.
But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.
There were no 1% interest mortgages.
They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%, and the bust made them jump to over 15%.
The drop to 3% did not happen until years later, when there were so many foreclosures that banks had to eventually drop rates.
Almost no one took out real estate loans they could not afford.
They were making the payments successfully, and could have continued doing so.
It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.
Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?
They liked being make homeless?
Again, read about the LIBOR scandal.
Libor scandal - Wikipedia
But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.
If you can only afford the teaser rate.....chances are you got a bad mortgage.
There were no 1% interest mortgages.
There were definitely mortgages with very low teaser rates as well as negative amortization mortgages.
They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%,
If rates were 8% or higher, the bubble wouldn't have happened.
and the bust made them jump to over 15%.
You're lying.
It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.
Deceptively? LOL!
When was the last time you took out a mortgage?
The pages and pages of rate disclosure documents are hard to miss.
Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?
Many had very low or no down payment at all.
First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE and not the fault of the borrower.
Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime, and that in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!
Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.
Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.
Nobody pays it.
Bill: $9000
Insurance: pays $3800.
You owe: $240.
No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.
It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.
No they don't. It's a tax scam. They take the money they get (and obviously do very well) and then write the "paper loss" off on their taxes.
Write offs don't amount to much. I have nearly a hundred every year. They still lose money if they don't make it up elsewhere.
Your Wall Street banksters and "job creator" class won't allow it, are you paying any attention at all?We already subsidize corporations with socialism.I love the "tax the corporations" ploy.
Tax corp's and they raise the price of their product that you and I pay for.
Tax big oil & the price of gasoline goes up & you and I pay for it.
STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO SAY TAX CORPORATIONS!!!
Then lets stop the socialism welfare state and let the chips fall where they may.
Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.
I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.
- First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
- It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
- Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.
Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.
I see no one demanding higher taxes to pay down the 23 Trillion.
I am. Have been for years. I think taxes should automatically go up (across the board, not the usual "targeted" bullshit - the increase needs to hit everyone) until we reach a balanced budget. It's the only way we'll get a true read on how much government people actually want. As it is, with no one paying for it, people will vote for every "free shit" program that is proposed.
I have better idea.
Why don't we for the time being keep the taxes where they are and cut back on spending? The money we cut back on we could use to pay the debt.
We could easily cut back a couple of trillion a year on Federal spending and still spend more money on the cost of government than almost any other country on earth.
When everything is paid off then we can reduce taxes by the amount we had been spending on the debt. Win win for everybody except the filthy welfare queens that suck on the teat of big government.
"Illegals" have zero elegibility for federal assitance, are you this unaware?Name one other country that has 20,000,000 illegals drawing on its health care systemHow many people here pay $20,000 a year in taxes?
Health Insurance Costs Surpass $20,000 Per Year, Hitting a Record
Can you explain how so, or was yours a fake statement?
The Democratic Debate Over 'Medicare For All' And Middle-Class Taxes, Explained
It's misleading to just say taxes are going up. Because those increases will be more than offset by the complete removal of healthcare premiums, co-pays and minimal prescription drug costs. Leaving out the full statement is creating Fake News.
It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?
You don't smart so good, do you...
How many times has the banking industry needed bailed out? We should trust private industry?
Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?
Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?
It's misleading to just say taxes are going up. Because those increases will be more than offset by the complete removal of healthcare premiums, co-pays and minimal prescription drug costs. Leaving out the full statement is creating Fake News.
It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?
You don't smart so good, do you...
How many times has the banking industry needed bailed out? We should trust private industry?
Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?
Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?
What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?
Do you have all of your savings investments in the medical field?Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.
Nobody pays it.
Bill: $9000
Insurance: pays $3800.
You owe: $240.
No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.
It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.
I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.
The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.
Why not? According to you they’re the biggest profit takers on earth.
Since the medical fields are the biggest profit takes on earth, they do not need a lot of invesment capital.
They already force us to prepay them more money than they know what to do with.
That is why they own most of the mutual funds investment companies.
They don't know what to do with all that money we keep prepaying them.
So the interest they pay out to stock holders is very low.
Only about 4% or less.
Most things pay better, like real estate.
The only good thing about investing in medical corporations is stability.
They never go down.
Regardless of whether the 3rd party decoupled the consumer of the costs and consequences of their life style, or whether it decoupled them from being able to contest pricing or quality of services, clearly 3rd party, prepaid, health care, has totally and completely failed.
It is not working and can not be fixed without getting rid ot the third party.
And the third party is the insurance company, which adds nothing and greatly takes away.
It is not even the profits they skim that is the worst, but the vast overhead they add in administrative costs for all their required paperwork for claims.
Likely we should switch from a pre-paid system of premiums, to where government underwrites guarantees medical loans you post pay, after you get medical services. That way payments could be based on ability to pay and people below poverty level have their medical loans forgiven.
You're missing the point... it CANNOT be "fixed" by changing who pays and how the bills get paid, it can only be fixed by altering the trajectory of the demand for health care services which involves Americans changing their eating and exercise habits (aka lifestyle) along with re-coupling consumption with actual COST of consumption.
If you don't fix the root causes of accelerating demand our health care costs coupled with the loss of productivity brought about by chronic disease will BANKRUPT the United States and effectively destroy the productive economy.
All this BS about bickering over who handles insurance and what "system" we should adopt is just an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
We are 23 Trillion in debt. When do we hit bankruptcy? If we do not have to pay for bombs and bailouts, why do we have to pay for healthcare?
Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
Most of our annual budget is defense once you include things like VA and GIBill costs.
The national debt still includes SDI, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
There is essentially no social services in the national debt.
There will be some when SS temporarily short falls by 10% or so, but nothing significant yet.
Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
You misspelled "entitlement spending".
That is not at all true.
First of all, you can not include self funding programs like Social Security of Medicare.
Second is that not only is about 50% of the rest of the national budget for defense, but all of the interest on past debt is also defense. So the real total for defense spending is more like 75% of the discretionary budget.
You should be called names because you are confuses about this big time. You don't get a pass when you take idiotic positions. It doesn't get any more idiotic than advocating that the fucking government control our health care.
I did answer your confusion by saying that the right thing to do is for you pay for your health care and I pay for mine and we leave the worthless corrupt bloated oppressive government out of it.
Do you think any politician would ever get elected on running on ending Medicare?
I would vote for anybody that ran on that platform.
You would be an idiot if you didn't also vote for him/her.
It takes courage to do the right thing and undo government screw ups. Too bad we don't have very many politicians with courage. Those same gutless assholes are the ones that you stupid Moon Bats want to run your health care. Then you wonder why we ridicule you so much.
Medicare is one of the most successful programs in the whole country, with admin costs less than 10% that of private health care. The only reason Medicare is not better is that it does not hire its own doctors and nurses directly, like the VA does, and would be even more efficient.
You are confused. Medicare is fucking disaster that the politicians keep raiding money from the program. It also controls what kind of health care you get and how much the payout will be. Who in their right mind would want to sign up for a program where a bureaucrat gets to decide what kind of health care you get?
You are forced by the government to pay for it when you earn money and then they control what you get as payback and that is a stupid program. It is better for you to take care of your own health care and leave the fucking government and their control out of it.
Of course if you a worthless Democrat voting welfare queen or Illegal you don't like the idea of being responsible for anything. You want other people to pay your bills.
Why would you even want to be forced into a program where you had to work in order to pay somebody else's bills? On a moron would sign up for something like that.
That makes no sense because the alternative to voted in bureaucrats deciding your health care, is for profit corporation deciding your health care, which is 100s of times worse.
You prepay health insurance premiums, so you have absolutely no say at all when it comes down to actually needing health care, as to quality or costs, when it is private. You ONLY get any say at all when it is public.
Government control is how you stop abusive monopolies and other frauds.
The whole point of having government involved is to ensure everyone is equally involved and paying appropriately.
It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?
You don't smart so good, do you...
How many times has the banking industry needed bailed out? We should trust private industry?
Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?
Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?
What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?
You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.
How many times has the banking industry needed bailed out? We should trust private industry?
Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?
Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?
What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?
You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.
Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.
When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.
All it says is they can't pay for a military longer than two years. which they don't.The military is in the constitution. Medicare is not.Medicare to go broke three years earlier than expected ...Medicare is one of the most successful programs in the whole country, with admin costs less than 10% that of private health care. The only reason Medicare is not better is that it does not hire its own doctors and nurses directly, like the VA does, and would be even more efficient.
https://www.politico.com › 2018/06/05 › medicare-outlook-2026-625908
Jun 5, 2018 - Medicare's hospital trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2026, three years earlier than previously projected, the program's trustees said ...
If the military isn't going to go broke, Medicare isn't either.
A standing military is NOT in the constitution except for coast guard and training facilities.
Medicare is in the constitution because anything that can not be done by the states is in the constitution, and since people move from state to state, there is no other way to track their pension contributions.
And Medicare is financed off pension contributions to SS and FICA.
2: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?
Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?
What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?
You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.
Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.
When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.
Private industry cry's to the government to bail them out and they do. I do not care that you say you do not support that, it's what happens.
Now again, try and end Medicare.
I see no one demanding higher taxes to pay down the 23 Trillion.
I am. Have been for years. I think taxes should automatically go up (across the board, not the usual "targeted" bullshit - the increase needs to hit everyone) until we reach a balanced budget. It's the only way we'll get a true read on how much government people actually want. As it is, with no one paying for it, people will vote for every "free shit" program that is proposed.
I have better idea.
Why don't we for the time being keep the taxes where they are and cut back on spending? The money we cut back on we could use to pay the debt.
We could easily cut back a couple of trillion a year on Federal spending and still spend more money on the cost of government than almost any other country on earth.
When everything is paid off then we can reduce taxes by the amount we had been spending on the debt. Win win for everybody except the filthy welfare queens that suck on the teat of big government.
I see no one demanding higher taxes to pay down the 23 Trillion.
I am. Have been for years. I think taxes should automatically go up (across the board, not the usual "targeted" bullshit - the increase needs to hit everyone) until we reach a balanced budget. It's the only way we'll get a true read on how much government people actually want. As it is, with no one paying for it, people will vote for every "free shit" program that is proposed.
I have better idea.
Why don't we for the time being keep the taxes where they are and cut back on spending? The money we cut back on we could use to pay the debt.
We could easily cut back a couple of trillion a year on Federal spending and still spend more money on the cost of government than almost any other country on earth.
When everything is paid off then we can reduce taxes by the amount we had been spending on the debt. Win win for everybody except the filthy welfare queens that suck on the teat of big government.
I pretty much agree except that there really is no federal welfare to speak of.
There is ADC, but no one can really live on that, and that is for the children, not adults.
It is military spending we need to cut back by trillions.
They don't use our publically funded schools or hospitals? Are you sure?"Illegals" have zero elegibility for federal assitance, are you this unaware?Name one other country that has 20,000,000 illegals drawing on its health care systemHow many people here pay $20,000 a year in taxes?
Health Insurance Costs Surpass $20,000 Per Year, Hitting a Record
Do you want to double check?
