abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Then why not just expand it to everyone who wants it and let the rest decide? If it's a better option, people will opt for it regardless of their income and wealth.
If Medicare is better than private insurance...
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Does medicare even exist in the third world south Asian country you reside?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
US citizens still pay taxes for work abroad.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Wealthy people would just continue to buy private insurance, sick and poor people would be the only ones utilizing medicare, the system would become overburdened, then Republicans and people like you who oppose universal healthcare would claim that it doesn't work when it inevitably fails
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nah, that's just you trying to sell a dead budgie.
Adding the public option to the ACA is not only more politically powerful but can get done in a divided Congress and get signed by a Democratic Prez.
Medicare for all is just one more excuse by Sanders for not getting anything done during his career. You are beginning to talk me into voting for Biden.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Remind me again how many Republicans voted for the ACA?
Reality doesn't fit the fabricated narrative
And boomers already support Biden, and you oppose universal healthcare, you will fit right in
Reality doesn't fit the fabricated narrative
And boomers already support Biden, and you oppose universal healthcare, you will fit right in
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I do not oppose universal healthcare. I don't even oppose M4A per se. I just oppose the Bernie-Liz plan like most of the country and like most of the lawmakers who supported it until they got an idea of the cost.
Besides that, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Wealthy people opting out would not overburden the system, nor would poor people opting in. The whole point is to get the last 8% of Americans covered so that everyone will have healthcare coverage. Obamacare was literally universal healthcare and would have achieved it had Trump not fucked it.
I'm beginning to think that you support this braindead bullshit for no reason other than your actual opposition to getting the remaining uncovered 27 million Americans covered. That's the most likely reason you oppose Obamacare, which did more to expand healthcare coverage than any other measure in US history.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Oh, so here you are plainly saying that Bernie's plans have no chance of passage.
In order to move the ACA through the Senate, it has to be in Democratic Party control. Bernie's stupid healthcare bill would ensure that cannot happen.
xmatox
Well-Known Member
Trump didn't begin the dismantling of Obamacare. Trump isn't even smart enough to begin that process, and to believe otherwise puts you on his IQ level. That started before Trump took office. Republican governors refused to expand their programs in their states, which didn't allow people who needed coverage in those states to be covered. Add that to a bunch of Republican lawsuits blocking the bill and boom, you have a current situation. The Republican party then shouted at the top of their lungs that the ACA is failing to cover everyone as early "projected" by them.
Your conclusion that the "whole point" is to get the remaining Americans covered is not the only problem as you so make it seem. Enormous healthcare costs are not going to go away with private insurance. Enormous administrative costs are not going away. Lack of transparency in regards to pricing and what private insurance will cover will still be present. Collective bargaining still isn't as strong as it would be. In fact, what is going to make doctors just avoid taking anymore medicare patients and just taking private? Or vice versa? You going to create a law that forces doctors to see specific types of patients now? This list of issues goes on and on. You're missing a large piece of the puzzle with your generalizations and overarching conclusions.
Your statements about costs are also ridiculous. Right now we pay more than every single country in the world for healthcare at more than 3.5 trillion a year and don't even cover everyone and have to pay a ridiculous amount out of pocket. That's almost twice as much as other developed countries. So a decade on our current path of spending is 35 trillion. The estimated cost of medicare for all are between 32 -35 trillion over ten years and would cover everyone. Sounds like we would break even or save money. The ACA was a good beginning proposal and conversation starter to get the public to medicare for all. Presidents since the early 20th century have advocated and proposed universal coverage. It's time we do that, and in such a way that is cost efficient and fair to everyone.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
But it's not paid for by taxes.
We both agree that the current system is broken. We both agree that we pay FAR MORE than any other country.
We should both agree that costs need to be reduced before they are nationalized. The Bernie-Liz plan is nonsense.
You need to include a citation regarding cost. We agree clearly on the low end estimate of the cost. I would like to see what you found that so I can read it too.
32 trillion dollars is still enough to make all current spending into deficit spending and there's already a huge deficit.
And yes, Obamacare would have gotten everyone covered. And yes, killing Obamacare was one of the primary items Trump campaigned on even if congressional repukes were already resisting it.
Most of the rest of your wall of text is just long winded and not necessary to the debate.
BurtMaklin
Well-Known Member
How much does the US government waste stealing resources and guarding pipelines for Americas richest corporations?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
How many miles per gallon does your dog sled achieve?
See? I can ask dumb questions unrelated to the debate also.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
ok I'll play nice:
The defense budget is now upwards of 700 billion dollars annually and there's also a "black budget" of around 400 billion. I could be off but the total is definitely under 1.3 trillion dollars a year. This should be cut drastically but even if we completely do away with the military AND repeal the Trump tax cuts, there still wouldn't be enough money for single-payer unless taxes go up by a lot for everyone, not with current healthcare costs.
The defense budget is now upwards of 700 billion dollars annually and there's also a "black budget" of around 400 billion. I could be off but the total is definitely under 1.3 trillion dollars a year. This should be cut drastically but even if we completely do away with the military AND repeal the Trump tax cuts, there still wouldn't be enough money for single-payer unless taxes go up by a lot for everyone, not with current healthcare costs.
xmatox
Well-Known Member
It's paid for out of our pockets. The average premium for family coverage has increased 22% over the last five years and 54% over the last ten years. How does continuing down this path solve anything? You suggest expanding the ACA. That doesn't address any of the underlying concerns. Our premiums will still continue to increase. Moreover, I would also argue that right now people with insurance still dodge hospital and doctor visits due to costs, being underinsured, and lack of payment/charges transparency, and yet we still spend 3.5 trillion a year. What would that number look like if every American attended doctor visits and could afford procedures, because that is the real number that we should be comparing to Medicare For All . Over 20 million (closer to 30) Americans are uninsured and over 30 million are underinsured, and the current cost is 3.5 trillion annually. The math behind covering everyone under the current system comes out to adding about a trillion annually to what we already spend. Therefore, if we used 4.5 trillion as a comparison, the answer becomes more clear that we may be paying more not going the medicare for all route.
Furthermore, here are just a few articles/studies that go over different cost estimates for individual states and nationally. There are much more that come up with similar figures online, but i'm not going to flood you with links.
How Would a Single-Payer Option Work for New York State?
A single-payer health care plan could expand coverage to all New York residents, but it would require significant new tax revenue. Overall health care costs would decrease slightly over time if administrative costs are reduced and state officials slow the growth of payments to providers.
www.rand.org
How Much Would Single Payer Cost? - PNHP
A Summary of Studies compiled by Ida Hellander, M.D.Editors’ Note: With the recent resurgence of interest in controlling health care costs, we thought a review of some of the state and national fiscal studies performed on single payer over the years might be useful. The entries are listed...
I added these two to show that even libertarian and Republican voices cite similar numbers.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-much-would-medicare-for-all-cost-democrats-health-care-plan-explained -
Biggest study yet, and is cited by Republicans: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
-"Performing similar calculations for each year results in an estimate that M4A would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the period from 2022 through 2031, with the annual cost increase reaching nearly 12.7 percent of GDP by 2031 and continuing to rise afterward. "
The study then goes on to give... "a hypothetical alternative scenario in which all of the plan’s benefit provisions are fully effective by 2019. In this hypothetical scenario, the 10-year (2019–202
net federal budget cost would be $27.7 trillion, rising from roughly 10.4 percent of GDP annually in 2019 to 11.3 percent in 2028. "
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That's correct. So we agree on this. We also agree that the cost is at least 32 trillion in the first decade. The Mercatus study is the source of the high end estimate of 49 trillion. I am willing to reject this and agree that the cost will start at 32 trillion dollars which, yes is slightly less than what we would pay out of pocket on the aggregate.
So I accept your argument. However, this does not at all lead to a conclusion that huge middle class tax hikes aren't essential to nationalizing the costs before reducing them.
Furthermore, I pay very little for health care because I am healthy and I opt for deductibles and co-pays. It's the uninsured who cost so much. There are a whole lot of people like me. We will not see a savings with the Bernie-Liz plan. If you are willing to live with huge tax hikes, vote accordingly.
I'd rather the government focus on getting the remaining 27 million Americans insured and then spend some money on a green new deal.
BurtMaklin
Well-Known Member
Yup, that was a dumb question. Not only does 1987 want it's bad Canada/dogsled joke back, it makes no sense.
If we're talking about how America spends its tax dollars, it is relevant what the military spends to oppress, pillage and police the little brown people of the world, because "democracy".
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, we should not be wasting cents on conquest when we're dollars in debt on health care.
Healthcare costs are roughly 5 times the cost of the military machine.
xmatox
Well-Known Member
The ACA fails to address many concerns that impact Americans. Concerns that would be addressed in M4A.
The ACA fails to address the underinsured. In fact, it has gotten worse under the ACA.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/Collins_hlt_ins_coverage_8_years_after_ACA_2018_biennial_survey_sb.pdf
If the government, aka "tax payers" front the bill on $639 billion on private industry bailouts, even though we only received back roughly half that, then we can afford to front the cost of the burden on the middle class until its fully implemented.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
You are healthy, and I am happy for you, but many are not. In fact, over 90 million Americans are obese and will more than likely seek medical attention later in life. This number is only increasing. This is just one example. You still have to pay for hospital visits under the ACA. If people go to the hospital for a heart attack and can't afford it even though they have insurance, YOU are ultimately paying for it because the ambulance company, hospitals, drug companies, medical tool companies, and potentially private doctors on call will increase their prices. The ACA does not address the issue that hundreds of thousands of people file bankruptcy due to medical bills. This list just goes on. What you are ultimately proposing is that you are just fine with Americans facing these few examples I addressed. IMO that is sad, and what I would call "Diet Universal Healthcare". I do not support this.
You mentioned the Green new deal, but that is estimated to cost between $50-$90 Trillion over 10 years. I support the GND. How can you logically conclude that we can't afford M4A, but can afford the GND?
CDC on obesity- https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
American Journal on public health regarding medical bankruptcy-
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications
American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)
ajph.aphapublications.org
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Cool story. I still don't want my taxes going up. That's what you're not addressing here. Before costs are reduced, it is not possible to implement this Bernie-Liz plan of giving everyone including immigrants full comprehensive coverage whether they want it or not, without massive middle class tax hikes. The Bernie-Liz plan also gives medical professionals a pay cut while removing up to 700,000 jobs.The ACA fails to address many concerns that impact Americans. Concerns that would be addressed in M4A.
The ACA fails to address the underinsured. In fact, it has gotten worse under the ACA.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/Collins_hlt_ins_coverage_8_years_after_ACA_2018_biennial_survey_sb.pdf
If the government, aka "tax payers" front the bill on $639 billion on private industry bailouts, even though we only received back roughly half that, then we can afford to front the cost of the burden on the middle class until its fully implemented.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
You are healthy, and I am happy for you, but many are not. In fact, over 90 million Americans are obese and will more than likely seek medical attention later in life. This number is only increasing. This is just one example. You still have to pay for hospital visits under the ACA. If people go to the hospital for a heart attack and can't afford it even though they have insurance, YOU are ultimately paying for it because the ambulance company, hospitals, drug companies, medical tool companies, and potentially private doctors on call will increase their prices. The ACA does not address the issue that hundreds of thousands of people file bankruptcy due to medical bills. This list just goes on. What you are ultimately proposing is that you are just fine with Americans facing these few examples I addressed. IMO that is sad, and what I would call "Diet Universal Healthcare". I do not support this.
You mentioned the Green new deal, but that is estimated to cost between $50-$90 Trillion over 10 years. I support the GND. How can you logically conclude that we can't afford M4A, but can afford the GND?
CDC on obesity- https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
American Journal on public health regarding medical bankruptcy-
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications
American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)ajph.aphapublications.org
The GND would create jobs and pay for itself over time and at a rate that outpaces the spending involved. Lest you forget that none of these economic initiatives require payment in full upfront.
We've seen what infrastructure spending does for the economy. The economy is also government revenue.