• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders rolls out Medicare-for-All plan

Sheesh, we've got people claiming single payer is communism on here with no complaints from you. So it's also "par for the course" for independents and conservatives.

And the thing is every country on the planet has hired the people with professional specializations to work through complex topics and every single one of them has settled on some kind of UHC/single payer system. There's a good reason for that I think, don't you? Every country that ranks HIGHER/better than the U.S. on "economic freedom" still has some form of UHC. Something about healthcare that doesn't lend itself to traditional market solutions....

Single payer systems you do understand cannot be efficient and they will almost certainly be no more fair than a system of well informed citizens.
 

No. Canada has a minium standard that every province must reach. They are required to provide single payer to all citizens. They just get to administer it a little differently in each province.
 
Single payer systems you do understand cannot be efficient and they will almost certainly be no more fair than a system of well informed citizens.

There is no evidence for this
 
Swedes would never make it in this country as they have that entitlement mentality vs. the independent spirit that thrives here. By the way did you see how Texans banned together to help each other during the floods? You see in this country it is all about neighbor helping neighbor but in yours the govt. is that neighbor and you pay for that in your tax structure. In this country we have a private sector thriving economy where govt. spending is a smaller percentage which isn't the case in yours. Govt. spending is the largest component of your GDP, not so here

Second half: You are right, completely. First half - not so much. I leave soon for Canada and the US: one neighbour will look after my mail and house plants, another some things in the garden. The Swedish gov will be nowhere in sight. They, and others, are available any time to give advice about my type 2 diabetes but I still welcome that of the specialist nurse (Tova and I enjoyed the 10th anniversary of our first meeting a few months ago) employed by the county and funded through our taxes.

'Socialist' medicine is not the big bad threatening monster of your nightmares. Wake up and smell the beverage of your choice.
 
Single payer systems you do understand cannot be efficient and they will almost certainly be no more fair than a system of well informed citizens.

GOPosters are frantic over seeing the 'winds of change' in this Nation, knowing the President will go back to his socialist roots, attempting to pick off Sanders voters ...
 
No. Canada has a minium standard that every province must reach. They are required to provide single payer to all citizens. They just get to administer it a little differently in each province.

Within that though the provinces have a great deal of freedom as to how they provide healthcare.

But yeah, if he was talking about letting states choose whether or not to have singlepayer, that's definitely not a thing in Canada.
 
Where is this country that has a wonderful free market healthcare system?

Nice Straw man.

Prior to ObamaCare Insurers could sell and create policies based on actuarial data.
There were no price controls, no mandates for what their policies should cover and definately no mandate to purchase their products.


The Obama administration thought they could take over and run our health insurance industry better than the corporations that had been at it for decades and that their arbitrary rules would actually lead to cheaper health insurance and better access to care.

The arrogance of the Left is just astounding.

You can tell the ACA was written by a bunch of Left wing ideologues who have never run a bussiness and who were opposed on principle to free market fundamenrtals

Every idea they came up with regarding the ACA failed miserably.
The cost shifting mechanism, co-ops, risk corridors, state esxchange, price controls, all of it a failure.

So you people are going to have a real hars time selling singlepayer and you can thank Obama and the Dems for showing via example just how incompetent the Fed Govt is when theyre given that much authority over peoples lives.
 
Second half: You are right, completely. First half - not so much. I leave soon for Canada and the US: one neighbour will look after my mail and house plants, another some things in the garden. The Swedish gov will be nowhere in sight. They, and others, are available any time to give advice about my type 2 diabetes but I still welcome that of the specialist nurse (Tova and I enjoyed the 10th anniversary of our first meeting a few months ago) employed by the county and funded through our taxes.

'Socialist' medicine is not the big bad threatening monster of your nightmares. Wake up and smell the beverage of your choice.

This country was built on freedoms with the freedom of choice being one of them. It was also built on personal responsibility and individual wealth creation, none of that breeds entitlements for our Forefathers understood personal responsibility but socialists never will. There is a reason we have the best economy in the world and the greatest opportunities for people to succeed and yes fail and none of that has anything to do with socialism
 
GOPosters are frantic over seeing the 'winds of change' in this Nation, knowing the President will go back to his socialist roots, attempting to pick off Sanders voters ...

No we're not frantic at all. Sanders is just preaching to the choir, riling up his base who are naive enough to think Single payer is feasible in the first place

Vermont had ro scrap their single payer law after their Governor realized that the tax increases needed to pay for it would destroy the States local economy.

California shelved their single payer law because even the Libs over their realize coming up with a extra 400 billion in revenue to pay for it is nigh impossible for a State that already has over 500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.

There's nothing to get frantic about, Single payer will never happen in this Nation
 
No we're not frantic at all. Sanders is just preaching to the choir, riling up his base who are naive enough to think Single payer is feasible in the first place

Vermont had ro scrap their single payer law after their Governor realized that the tax increases needed to pay for it would destroy the States local economy.

California shelved their single payer law because even the Libs over their realize coming up with a extra 400 billion in revenue to pay for it is nigh impossible for a State that already has over 500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.

There's nothing to get frantic about, Single payer will never happen in this Nation

How's Porn Tweet Cruz doing? O'Rourke will take him down next year !!!
 
Nice Straw man.

Prior to ObamaCare Insurers could sell and create policies based on actuarial data.
There were no price controls, no mandates for what their policies should cover and definately no mandate to purchase their products.


The Obama administration thought they could take over and run our health insurance industry better than the corporations that had been at it for decades and that their arbitrary rules would actually lead to cheaper health insurance and better access to care.

The arrogance of the Left is just astounding.

You can tell the ACA was written by a bunch of Left wing ideologues who have never run a bussiness and who were opposed on principle to free market fundamenrtals

Every idea they came up with regarding the ACA failed miserably.
The cost shifting mechanism, co-ops, risk corridors, state esxchange, price controls, all of it a failure.

So you people are going to have a real hars time selling singlepayer and you can thank Obama and the Dems for showing via example just how incompetent the Fed Govt is when theyre given that much authority over peoples lives.

Look you propose a system. I say ...great....show me where it works anywhere in the entire world. You can not. Those are the facts.
 
No we're not frantic at all. Sanders is just preaching to the choir, riling up his base who are naive enough to think Single payer is feasible in the first place

Vermont had ro scrap their single payer law after their Governor realized that the tax increases needed to pay for it would destroy the States local economy.

California shelved their single payer law because even the Libs over their realize coming up with a extra 400 billion in revenue to pay for it is nigh impossible for a State that already has over 500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.

There's nothing to get frantic about, Single payer will never happen in this Nation

Of course it will. It is inevitable
 
This country was built on freedoms with the freedom of choice being one of them. It was also built on personal responsibility and individual wealth creation, none of that breeds entitlements for our Forefathers understood personal responsibility but socialists never will. There is a reason we have the best economy in the world and the greatest opportunities for people to succeed and yes fail and none of that has anything to do with socialism


I thank My Creator for giving us FDR and BHO for dragging the USA, with GOPs kicking and screaming, out of GOP messes ...
 
Until they see the price tag and figure out who's paying for it. Not to mention all the crap that'll be hidden in it, like death panels.
Death panels? You don't say.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
 
Nice Straw man.

Prior to ObamaCare Insurers could sell and create policies based on actuarial data.
There were no price controls, no mandates for what their policies should cover and definately no mandate to purchase their products.


The Obama administration thought they could take over and run our health insurance industry better than the corporations that had been at it for decades and that their arbitrary rules would actually lead to cheaper health insurance and better access to care.

The arrogance of the Left is just astounding.

You can tell the ACA was written by a bunch of Left wing ideologues who have never run a bussiness and who were opposed on principle to free market fundamenrtals

Every idea they came up with regarding the ACA failed miserably.
The cost shifting mechanism, co-ops, risk corridors, state esxchange, price controls, all of it a failure.

So you people are going to have a real hars time selling singlepayer and you can thank Obama and the Dems for showing via example just how incompetent the Fed Govt is when theyre given that much authority over peoples lives.

Insurers are the reason we have such an OPIOID problem ...
 
Single payer systems you do understand cannot be efficient and they will almost certainly be no more fair than a system of well informed citizens.

I'm sorry but I have no clue at all what that means. Efficient compared to what? Duke Hospital reportedly has 900 beds and 1,300 billing clerks in our public/private/uninsured hybrid system. Are you asserting that single payer would be LESS "efficient" than that? We know that we pay roughly double the world average, spend FAR more on admin and related, and still have 10s of millions uninsured, so it's unclear how that system is more "efficient" than, say, France's system which provides care to everyone at roughly 1/3 less our costs. Can you explain how you're measuring "efficiency" for this purpose? And do you have data?

Or maybe you're comparing "single payer" to some hypothetical system not the current dysfunctional hybrid US system. If so, please identify that mythical system.

And a "system of well informed citizens" is not a healthcare delivery system. Those citizens might demand or design a better system than single payer, but you'll have to explain how that "system" will work, with some details, so that we're all clear on how and why it is superior to, or more "fair" than, "single payer."
 
Last edited:
You really have no idea do you?
When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.,Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.
Indeed, Sanders’s 2016 revenue plan was a staggering $18 trillion short and still imposed more than $14 trillion in new taxes. To put this in context, the current total national debt — accumulated over the previous two centuries of the nation’s existence — is $20 trillion. These numbers are almost too huge for the human mind to grasp, but the mind can certainly grasp a substantially smaller paycheck.

Read more at: Page not found | National Review
You accuse me of "having no idea" when you try to scare us with that big "$32 trillion number" from the National Review -- that makes the number seem large by using the ten-year cost. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...onalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf

To put this into perspective, the U.S. spent in 2015, $3.2 trillion on health care. So, in ten years it would be $32 trillion. Obviously, Americans were paying that $3.2 trillion annual amount. Sanders' plan would just have that cost paid for by the government and raise taxes to pay for it. The savings comes from the fact that nobody needs to pay insurance premiums, copayments, deductibles, etc. So, exactly as I said, you pay taxes but don't have to pay any other healthcare expenses. ...and you accuse me of having no idea.

But it gets better. That $3.2 trillion number is the highest cost estimate. Kenneth Thorpe, a professor of health policy and management at Emory University, put the cost at $2.4 trillion a year. A team from the Urban Institute put the number at $2.5 trillion a year. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected $2.8 trillion a year. So, Americans would save money, just like Europeans save money on their system.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Bernie is lying to everyone, again. Medicare for all would never stay because the government can't afford it. Taxes would have to skyrocket in order to maintain some part of it. The only thing they would be able to do Medicaid (aka welfare). I work for a doctor's office (an optometrist). Medicare covers little to none when it comes to coverage towards vision visits, medical visits, and nothing for glasses. Here's how it breaks down: Medicare will cover towards the vision visit, but not the refraction (in a nutshell, the prescribing of the glasses). Medical visits, we are told, by Medicare, to bill the patient 20% and bill them the 80% balance. "Oh well, that's not bad", yeah, but then it turns bad when the patient receives notices from Medicare that they are NOT covering either half or the entire bill that was sent to them. Medicare does NOTHING for glasses, unless if you had cataract surgery ONLY 1 time. If you have to have more surgery on your cataracts later on, you're out of luck. "If this is true, why would they do that?" You have to take into account it was originally intended for seniors, not the entire country. They have to help cover towards medications, medical devices for at home, rehab, etc. Also they have to pay the doctors, but the problem is Medicare underpays them. Doctors have no choice, because of insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid, raise their prices in order to stay in business and to make a living. On top of all that is taxes because it's taxpayer funded, and taxes would have to be raised substantially in order to keep it going. It would all have to be the same plan too. You can't get any better plans other than what was proposed (which would be less than mediocre). With all these components lined, Medicare for all would not work.

Now, whenever someone like Crazy Bernie says Medicare for all, they actually mean Medicaid (welfare) for all. Like Medicare, but much worse. Plans are abysmal, you don't get the medications you need, you don't get the devices need, and they still tax you into oblivion. On top of all that, you're at the governments mercy even more so than with Medicare (at least there's some wiggle room there). For my field, they only have a certain selection to pick from when it comes to a complete pair of glasses. 99% of all Medicaid plans will not cover: no line bifocals (of any kind, yes there's more than one), aspheric lenses, ultra thin lenses, transitions (light to dark outdoors, dark to light indoors), solid tints, contact lenses (both the fitting and boxes of contact lenses), blu tech, polishing, semi rimless and completely rimless frames, and frames that are not under the plan. To be fair, that 1% can help cover SOME of that after a copay (and the copay is almost at the original price of the product, so it hardly does anything). They will cover the basics, but many patients' problems can not be solved with the basics (well less than basic, we're talking cheap quality). "Well surely they can cover more", no, that's all they can afford. Either they cover what they're covering now, or make everyone's taxes skyrocket well over 90% (and it will be everybody, not just the rich). Again, Medicaid for all is what is meant when someone like Crazy Bernie says Medicare for all.

The common theme here is taxes will go up a lot on all the citizens living here. The only people that will be exempt from this would be our elected government officials. They exempted themselves from Obamacare, so this wouldn't be any different. That way people like Crazy Bernie continue to stay wealthy. Fun Facts: Crazy Bernie owns 3 homes and is under investigation (at least his wife) for bank fraud. Also, never received a check until he was 40 years old from the government. Sounds like a bum, doesn't he? Anyway, don't fall for what that guy says. He can't relate to you, never held a real job, never owned a business, never had to write a paycheck, never wants to play by the rules (look at the investigation into his alleged bank fraud), but he LOVES manipulating people to getting them to do his dirty work and playing to their emotions. He's a sack of old stinky monkey poo.
 
This country was built on freedoms with the freedom of choice being one of them. It was also built on personal responsibility and individual wealth creation, none of that breeds entitlements for our Forefathers understood personal responsibility but socialists never will. There is a reason we have the best economy in the world and the greatest opportunities for people to succeed and yes fail and none of that has anything to do with socialism

Is it not odd that this country with the 'best economy' owes $ trillions to other countries? So much or self reliance. Like those idiots who demonstrate their "personal responsibility" by maxing out a half dozen credit cards.
 
Crazy Bernie is lying to everyone, again. Medicare for all would never stay because the government can't afford it. Taxes would have to skyrocket in order to maintain some part of it. The only thing they would be able to do Medicaid (aka welfare). I work for a doctor's office (an optometrist). Medicare covers little to none when it comes to coverage towards vision visits, medical visits, and nothing for glasses. Here's how it breaks down: Medicare will cover towards the vision visit, but not the refraction (in a nutshell, the prescribing of the glasses). Medical visits, we are told, by Medicare, to bill the patient 20% and bill them the 80% balance. "Oh well, that's not bad", yeah, but then it turns bad when the patient receives notices from Medicare that they are NOT covering either half or the entire bill that was sent to them. Medicare does NOTHING for glasses, unless if you had cataract surgery ONLY 1 time. If you have to have more surgery on your cataracts later on, you're out of luck. "If this is true, why would they do that?" You have to take into account it was originally intended for seniors, not the entire country. They have to help cover towards medications, medical devices for at home, rehab, etc. Also they have to pay the doctors, but the problem is Medicare underpays them. Doctors have no choice, because of insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid, raise their prices in order to stay in business and to make a living. On top of all that is taxes because it's taxpayer funded, and taxes would have to be raised substantially in order to keep it going. It would all have to be the same plan too. You can't get any better plans other than what was proposed (which would be less than mediocre). With all these components lined, Medicare for all would not work.

Now, whenever someone like Crazy Bernie says Medicare for all, they actually mean Medicaid (welfare) for all. Like Medicare, but much worse. Plans are abysmal, you don't get the medications you need, you don't get the devices need, and they still tax you into oblivion. On top of all that, you're at the governments mercy even more so than with Medicare (at least there's some wiggle room there). For my field, they only have a certain selection to pick from when it comes to a complete pair of glasses. 99% of all Medicaid plans will not cover: no line bifocals (of any kind, yes there's more than one), aspheric lenses, ultra thin lenses, transitions (light to dark outdoors, dark to light indoors), solid tints, contact lenses (both the fitting and boxes of contact lenses), blu tech, polishing, semi rimless and completely rimless frames, and frames that are not under the plan. To be fair, that 1% can help cover SOME of that after a copay (and the copay is almost at the original price of the product, so it hardly does anything). They will cover the basics, but many patients' problems can not be solved with the basics (well less than basic, we're talking cheap quality). "Well surely they can cover more", no, that's all they can afford. Either they cover what they're covering now, or make everyone's taxes skyrocket well over 90% (and it will be everybody, not just the rich). Again, Medicaid for all is what is meant when someone like Crazy Bernie says Medicare for all.

The common theme here is taxes will go up a lot on all the citizens living here. The only people that will be exempt from this would be our elected government officials. They exempted themselves from Obamacare, so this wouldn't be any different. That way people like Crazy Bernie continue to stay wealthy. Fun Facts: Crazy Bernie owns 3 homes and is under investigation (at least his wife) for bank fraud. Also, never received a check until he was 40 years old from the government. Sounds like a bum, doesn't he? Anyway, don't fall for what that guy says. He can't relate to you, never held a real job, never owned a business, never had to write a paycheck, never wants to play by the rules (look at the investigation into his alleged bank fraud), but he LOVES manipulating people to getting them to do his dirty work and playing to their emotions. He's a sack of old stinky monkey poo.
We can afford it if we want it. Other countries have done it without a problem. We can too,.
 
Back
Top Bottom