Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Rigby5]

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.

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!

The only reason we're ranked 29th is because not everybody has equal coverage.

According to the people who like the current system, less than 10% are without private coverage, and they get free ER care.
I think the reality is that more than 20% actually are without coverage, and the current system has very poor quality care.
I know people who went in for chest pains, were told it was indigestion, and they died a well later from a heart attack.
I know someone else who had a seizure, went in for MRI and xrays, were told nothing found, and a month later other doctors removed a golf ball sized tumor. But too late.
When I don't have insurance, no office will even take me, and I have to use ER or Urgent care.
ER wanted $2500 for a couple of stitches.

I have a lot of family that are healthcare providers and I have not seen or heard of most of the problems you listed.

My guess is that higher deductibles are keeping more people from going to the doctor with relatively minor problems because they are paying 100% of the cost while expanded Medicaid is encouraging people to seek medical help even for minor problems. For people with fairly serious problems such that they exceed their deductible or their yearly maximum, they are able to get the care they need without bankrupting the family, losing their home, etc.

Yes, by reducing the profit incentive, people would likely get more preventive medical access.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So DO IT send Bernie the money to put health insurance companies out of business DO IT TODAY! Here I'll just laugh at you now

I don't care, I will be voting for whatever Democrat they put up they all want the same thing. Help for the middle class and working class.... Worst inequality and upward mobility and 78% going paycheck to paycheck is not trivia, brainwashed functional moron

So you like people making $14/hr getting higher taxes on their paychecks.
Yep. You Leftards hate the poor.

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.
The waiting time in the US is about the same in countries with public health care, but they pay less than half as much.

My wish for you is that you live in Cuba today. I'd pay your way and burn your passport in Havana

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Walter E Williams put it best.

"I'm going to run for a federal office. My platforms will be I'm not bringing back any money to my state. I'm voting down all spending. Would you vote for me?"

And he never won or even ran for public office. In a recent poll, 84% believed a major function of government was to provide services to the people.

That's the point he was making. In other words, we blame the politicians for putting us in so much debt, but if they don't spend money on the things we want, we vote them out. So is it their fault or ours?

The great society ruined our nation. It's what I call the Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory:

You catch a raccoon digging inside of your garbage can, in sympathy, you go into the house and get that leftover ham on the bone you were going to throw out at the end of the week anyway. The animal eats in delight. Now give it about 30 seconds, and try to take that ham bone back, and see what happens to you.

Politicians, particularly on the left, are well aware of my raccoon theory. Once government gives people something, like the raccoon, they rightfully claim it theirs. Then the Republicans get in charge, and they don't do anything about the runaway social programs. How can they? If they try to take it back, they will get their hand chewed up.

 

[Grumblenuts]

because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years.

Tremendously simplifying something while tossing the waste resulting from paying a cabal of profit driven third parties huge sums to concoct ever more clever means to deny coverage and overcharge for everything that does get approved... uh, I still see nothing not to love and a quick, smooth transition. The Republicans then trying to reinstate Obamacare? How embarrassing!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

Putting people with serious pre-existing conditions on Medicare is a good idea but it needs to be serious prexisting conditions. Back before Obamacare when I applied for individual insurance, I had to complete a 26 page medical questions. I found I was ineligible for health insurance because I had asthma and hayfever. A goal of insurance companies was to eliminate anyone who might file a claim.

I think deductibles should be eliminated but not co-insurance and copays. People need to pay a small fee for services or they will over utilize the system.

I inquired about disability a few years back, and that's what they get after you are on the program for one year. And.....she stated the plans are more than reasonable; about 120 a month to 190, depending on what you can afford.

So if it's available to people on SS disability, why not make it available to others who are not on disability? The reason insurance companies don't want people like you or me is because we are high risk, just like an auto insurance company giving insurance to a documented drunk.

Remove those people from the private insurance rolls, and they can better manage prices. It would be a half-way point between what the Democrats want and what the Republicans want. And.....nobody can be accused of wanting to take healthcare away from people with preexisting conditions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you like people making $14/hr getting higher taxes on their paychecks.
Yep. You Leftards hate the poor.

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

The life expectancy on average in Canada is 82.8.

In the U.S. it's 78.5.

Eating clubbed baby seal is good for you.

All of the countries with the highest ratings have universal health care.

Because everybody gets healthcare, not because it's better.

 

[Flopper]

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.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

For generations the cost to deliver a baby was around $100.

There have also been major enhancements in maternity care, prenatal, and postnatal care. The result has been a decrease in infant mortality of 80% since the mid 20th century. Not sure how you put a price tag on that.

 

[Rigby5]

You would have nothing.

What’s the world ranking of Cuban healthcare according to the list you use?

79. Higher than the United States.

Life Expectancy in United States

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

Wrong!
Not only do thousands of people go to Cuba for health care each year, but teams of Cuban health providers are hired to come to other countries to deal with medical problems, like epidemics, etc.
Cuba has much better health care than the US in general. Just not some of the top, over paid, specialists.

Do you go to Cuba? No!

Can you name a single person who did? No!

Can you name a single American treated by one of these imaginary Cuban doctors? No!

I have never needed any significant medical treatment yet.
Just minor things like stitches.

But I know people who went to Cuba for cosmetic surgery, hip replacement, cancer treatment, etc.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you like people making $14/hr getting higher taxes on their paychecks.
Yep. You Leftards hate the poor.

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

The life expectancy on average in Canada is 82.8.

In the U.S. it's 78.5.

We have more minorities with more drugs and more violence.

I figured this would be the reply while missing the larger point. If things were so bad in Canada they would not have the 7th highest life expectancy rate.

Life expectancy depends on a lot of things, not just healthcare. After all, when do most of our people die? When they're on government healthcare.

Being a multi-cultured society, we have cultures that are much more violent than others, and therefore bring down our life expectancy rate. We are the fattest country in the world, and we probably get the least exercise. We also lose a lot of people due to narcotics, 68,000 a year and growing. Plus we lose about 40,000 Americans a year in road accidents.

So don't be fooled by believing that life expectancy is the sole indicator of good healthcare.

This kind of shit happens all the time in our city.

No arrests after 11-year-old killed at Cleveland birthday party

 

[Rigby5]

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

The life expectancy on average in Canada is 82.8.

In the U.S. it's 78.5.

Eating clubbed baby seal is good for you.

All of the countries with the highest ratings have universal health care.

Because everybody gets healthcare, not because it's better.

But it also is better.
The US has over 100,000 needless deaths a year due to medical malpractice, so our quality standards can't be that good, even if we have the best medical technology.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bernie's saying the same things he was 40 years ago. That's why he's going to win this time.

Do you really believe the Democrat party will let him? Did they let him last time?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

For generations the cost to deliver a baby was around $100.

There have also been major enhancements in maternity care, prenatal, and postnatal care. The result has been a decrease in infant mortality of 80% since the mid 20th century. Not sure how you put a price tag on that.

That may not always be good.
For example, if you do surgical repair of some genetic condition like spinal bifida, you are condemning future generations to needless pain and repetition of conditions that may be better removed from the gene pool.
While that may sound like eugenics, it actually is more like evolution. If you do not allow natural selection, you cause de-evolution by default.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

The life expectancy on average in Canada is 82.8.

In the U.S. it's 78.5.

Eating clubbed baby seal is good for you.

All of the countries with the highest ratings have universal health care.

Because everybody gets healthcare, not because it's better.

But it also is better.
The US has over 100,000 needless deaths a year due to medical malpractice, so our quality standards can't be that good, even if we have the best medical technology.

You do know we are a country of 320 million people, don't you?

 

[Flopper]

I think deductibles should be eliminated but not co-insurance and copays. People need to pay a small fee for services or they will over utilize the system.

I gather that's lumped in with deliberately choosing to wait longer in Canada. They save money while deterring frivolous usage of their services. Actual conservative values at work.

There have been several studies that show high deductibles insurance keeps utilization down as well as your living expense. That's a good thing if you consider medical services and your longevity a lower priority than your standard of living.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

How many people here pay $20,000 a year in taxes?

Health Insurance Costs Surpass $20,000 Per Year, Hitting a Record

Name one other country that has 20,000,000 illegals drawing on its health care system

Name one other country where twenty million illegals work and pay taxes rent houses and contribute to the economy.

 

[Rigby5]

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.
The waiting time in the US is about the same in countries with public health care, but they pay less than half as much.

Even Leftard Fact-check says Canadian wait times are twice as long as Americans wait times.

Comparing Health Care in Canada to the U.S.

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

There you go again, sheeple. Somebody ranks something doesn’t make it fact.

It is not only fact, but should be obvious.
A for profit medical system is going to have poor results because preventive care will be avoided.
Prices based on what the market will bear will deny care to those who deserve it.

 

[Rigby5]

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

At least he's being honest.

In all countries where there is publicly-funded healthcare, middle class taxes are higher to fund it.

The idea that we can just tax rich people and fund Medicare for All is a socialist fantasy.

Sure taxes increase slightly, but the huge private health insurance premiums we and our employers pay, all goes away, making US products far less expensive and more competitive in global markets.

 

[Rigby5]

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.
The waiting time in the US is about the same in countries with public health care, but they pay less than half as much.

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.

Sure they can! Who needs blood flow, it’s so overrated!

It does not work that way.
Most conditions applicable to a pacemaker can be temporarily controlled with drugs.
The pacemaker is just so that the drugs no longer are needed.
I worked for Biotronik, a German pacemaker company.

Drugs can take care of it that’s why we want to insert a probe into your heart to shoot electricity into it!

Dumbass.

Drugs and activity have to be carefully monitored.
So a pacemaker is highly desirable for a normal life.
But there is little risk in delaying the process.
Even after a pacemaker is installed, it almost never actually paces.
If it did, then the probe contact area would quickly become insensitive and the pacemaker useless.
Very rarely do pacemakes actually pace.
Most of the time they just monitor.

 

[Rigby5]

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.
The waiting time in the US is about the same in countries with public health care, but they pay less than half as much.

Even Leftard Fact-check says Canadian wait times are twice as long as Americans wait times.

Comparing Health Care in Canada to the U.S.

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

Wrong.
Far more US citizens go to Canada for medical treatment than Canadians go to the US.
US citizens go to Canada for cheaper and better ordinary treatment.
The only people who go from Canada to the US are the very wealthy who need extremely specialized care or do not care about the expense.

Find Private Clinics in Canada for Walk in Clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver

 

[Rigby5]

Imagine if it were a real monopoly, if there was only one insurance company. And you couldn't even refuse to pay your "premiums", because it had merged with the government, and the premiums were your taxes. Wouldn't that be a nightmare scenario?

A monopoly does not imply there is just one insurance company.
What it means is that you are unable to negotiate fairly because there is a monolithic control working against you.
That can be price fixing by many companies, or a government mandate.
It just means something is monopolizing your choices.
For example, a mafia protection racket is a monopoly by the threat of force if you do not comply.

But the government is not a monopoly because you get to vote and the people collectively control it.
It works for you instead of trying to gain profit out of you.
And public health care in no country has at all precluded private insurance or health care.
It just provides a minimal safety net as competition, in order to break the health insurance monopoly.

Yes, yes. It's all fine and dandy because we get to vote! What, once every four years, cast a vote for a representative and hope he or she votes the way you want on legislation??

You know how many votes it takes to fire a private insurance company if I don't like the way they do things? Just one. Mine. And there are other insurance companies. Granted, they operate in a rigged game propped up by ill-conceived regulation, but the obvious answer to that problem is to remove the legislation propping them up. Not to pass more.

You don't get to fire your insurance company.
Without it, you could die.
And about the only way to get access is through your employer, so you don't get any choice at all.
You get who your employer picks.

But I agree that ending the legislation that props up the insurance companies, which is the 1957 employer benefit tax exemption, likely would do it.
It would end the poor subsidizing the health care of the wealthy, and force everyone into the same position.
Then everyone would demand a real solution.