xmatox
Well-Known Member
Yet, with evidence in your face telling you it's cheaper and covers far more than the ACA, you reject it.
If Medicare is better than private insurance...
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How is M4A who want it funded? You still haven't explained that part while insisting we can't pay for something cheaper than what we already do because reasons
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
They can still be made to "subsidize" it without being given the benefit of it. It's called taxation.
ismann
Well-Known Member
Because then the government has control over what care you get. A lot of people don't want that.
lolwut? California, New York and Massachusetts have the most debt, buddy.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No I don't.
I just reject the brain dead plan by Bernie-Liz. I'm actually in favor of single payer once costs are down.
Learn how to read sweet heart.
xmatox
Well-Known Member
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA California has the 5th largest economy in the world.
xmatox
Well-Known Member
Bernie the "brain dead" who wrote the bill, but you are willing to support it once costs are down?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
True. Luckily, we can see that his record shows that he has accomplished nothing aside from renaming two post offices and fracturing the dnc, handing power to the gop.
ismann
Well-Known Member
That has nothing to do with what was stated. They can't pay their bills.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, I would never support that shit in its current form.Bernie the "brain dead" who wrote the bill, but you are willing to support it once costs are down?
Most of the lawmakers who once supported it now see that it's garbage.
xmatox
Well-Known Member
Our entire country is in debt. The world is in debt. That's how the current money system works. The reality is that California is the fifth largest economy and provides more for this country than every single other state, regardless of its debt. Many other states are in debt, which you seemed to have conveniently left out: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and others. Is Texas a socialist wet dream? No. Then why are they in debt?
xmatox
Well-Known Member
You mean lawmakers who take cues from lobbyist?
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Translation: "I'm not some sort of bigot, I'm for states rights! If you don't like it, just move to another state where they don't oppress you.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You distorted my argument on post number 67 and have lost credibility. I hope more lobbyists come and help lawmakers understand what it is that they are supporting. That bill is a dumpster fire.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Says the guy who thinks I lost my right to vote or express myself because I live in another country...
Try not to get chased out of any more playgrounds by mothers.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are not wrong. What is wrong is the harebrained and lazy approach that Bernie took. He had a good reason for it though. There isn't even close to enough support from the voting public to exchange a healthcare plan that they like with one that is unknown to them. Not to mention that nobody, not even Warren who I like a lot, has put forth a convincing plan that covers how much and how to control costs once the taxpayer foots the bill instead of private plans. Quite honestly, I don't think our Medicare system is ready for the influx of hundreds of millions of new members either. This isn't something that we can let fail. It was bad enough when the ACA exchanges came live the first time.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...pnhp.org
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 (2019–202net 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. "
If Medicare for All is such a great idea why does it have so many mandates? Why not put Medicare up as an option on the ACA exchange and let consumers decide for themselves which is better?
The largest problem right now is Trump and the Republican scurrilous, corrupt, regal way of governing. Medicare for all is a virtual lock to go nowhere regardless of who wins in 2020 so why risk losing the presidency to Republicans over it? Suggest we focus on putting forth changes to the ACA that voters want and then put political capital into other solidly popular Democratic party values in order to dump Trump.
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
That's not the only reason. You're a racist and a bigot. You think 100% of white folks, especially male christians, are going to steal your job through nepotism, or old money, or the fact people wrongly assume they're more moral on those characteristics, rather than on their qualifications alone.
You're just a hateful person that hates on America because you think ever single white man is secretly part of the 0.1%, even though that's not mathematically possible. You're completely insane.
Yes the system is rigged, but it's not because of white people.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Because they have to cover 40% of Kentucky’s state budget
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
They are a net contributor, just like the vast majority of liberal states
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I wanted to address this because my previous reply was rude. I was being bombarded with alerts from some pretty stupid comments.
This is a common argument and though it's a fallacy, you meant no uncouth interaction.
Essentially, our system is too broken for a simple fix. Comparing us to others is a fallacy. We can't nationalize 32 trillion dollars in cost without huge tax hikes on the middle class.
It is going to take time to get affordable single payer in America. Expanding Medicare to those who need it will achieve universal coverage and bring down costs.
Those other countries didn't simply shock their systems with dramatic shifts in spending. Nor were healthcare costs such a huge burden to nationalize. Nor did they have trillion dollar deficits and 14 trillion dollars of debt.