• 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!

This Is Medicare For All

So if they had no insurance at all, is that the answer? Not being able to afford insurance is an issue many in this country face. What solution do you favor?

Even if you are able to afford your Medicare (for some) premiums, which consume about 17% of my girlfriend's Social Security income, does not mean that you will have no additional out-of-pocket medical care costs.
 
Even if you are able to afford your Medicare (for some) premiums, which consume about 17% of my girlfriend's Social Security income, does not mean that you will have no additional out-of-pocket medical care costs.

Indeed. My sister and I help my mother with her out-of-pocket medical costs.
 
Indeed. My sister and I help my mother with her out-of-pocket medical costs.

I would like to see a bill making current Medicare have no premiums, deductibles or co-pays and to offer the "complete" coverage that M4A is supposed to offer funded entirely by an increase in the FICA payroll tax just to let folks have some idea as to the (equally shared?) cost of a M4A system.
 
I would like to see a bill making current Medicare have no premiums, deductibles or co-pays and to offer the "complete" coverage that M4A is supposed to offer funded entirely by an increase in the FICA payroll tax just to let folks have some idea as to the (equally shared?) cost of a M4A system.

It will also need to regulate the drug industry, to get rid of the chronic price gouging on medicines.
 
It will also need to regulate the drug industry, to get rid of the chronic price gouging on medicines.

Why? That was not done as part of Medicare (for some) legislation. The first step is to come clean about the actual costs of medical care - then we can start to talk about finding ways to reduce them. We have no problem letting the single-payer DoD fund huge profits for the MIC, yet you somehow expect that congress critters are going to make those evil drug companies behave better (once you let them take over as the single-payer, of course).
 
Why? That was not done as part of Medicare (for some) legislation. The first step is to come clean about the actual costs of medical care - then we can start to talk about finding ways to reduce them. We have no problem letting the single-payer DoD fund huge profits for the MIC, yet you somehow expect that congress critters are going to make those evil drug companies behave better (once you let them take over as the single-payer, of course).

Because, the lack of over site of the financial side industry is the on of the factors in cost of the increased health care prices. Free market has shown it just doesn't work when people's lives on on the line.
 
Because, the lack of over site of the financial side industry is the on of the factors in cost of the increased health care prices. Free market has shown it just doesn't work when people's lives on on the line.

My point must have zoomed over your head. Letting the government become the single-payer does not lower costs - see the MIC.
 
My point must have zoomed over your head. Letting the government become the single-payer does not lower costs - see the MIC.

Yes, it does.. if it's done right. If you single payer instead of a for profit insurance company, you don't pay the costs for the insurance company in form of profits. Then, if you regulate the price gouging for medicines, that is a big amount of the costs too.
 
Yes, it does.. if it's done right. If you single payer instead of a for profit insurance company, you don't pay the costs for the insurance company in form of profits. Then, if you regulate the price gouging for medicines, that is a big amount of the costs too.

That (bolded above) is precisely my point and the federal government is the single-payer for all DoD (prime) contracts - do you see any evidence that they make attempts to cut out the middle man or insist on non-profit providers? If not then, exactly, why do you expect the same (campaign cash dependent) congress critters to treat some other industry differently once they grant themselves the power to be the single-payer?

Are public schools great examples of lean, mean and efficient institutions that are doing a great job at cost control? Simply make an honest assessment of the existing, real world examples of single-payer (government run) systems.
 
How do you know they were on Medicare? Does the article say it (I did not see it) or you just assume it based on their age?

Also, it's good to know you want to fix Medicare to cover parts it does not have yet.

They were in their 70's. Are you saying that they weren't? Come on now, that is a very lame argument.
 
So if they had no insurance at all, is that the answer? Not being able to afford insurance is an issue many in this country face. What solution do you favor?

I want to tackle healthcare from the bottom up instead of the top down. We need to work with health insurance companies, providers, and Big Pharma in working to reduce THEIR costs. Treating them like they are the enemy of the people is the wrong approach and total government control is the wrong approach. What we do now is try to stiff payments to everyone in order to control costs.

Why does college cost so much to be a doctor?

Why do drugs cost so much? - hint it is not because Big Pharma is greedy.

Why does it cost so much to run a hospital or other facility?

Why does that MRI machine and other medical equipment cost so much?

Why does mal practice insurance cost so much?


Etc Etc
 
We do not have Medicare for all and Medicare (for some) with or without additional supplemental 'private' insurance coverage can be far from user cost free.

Which is my point. With Medicare For All, many things would not be covered or covered well without the addition of private insurance. Medicare For All sounds good but it is just a sound bite. My OP shows that MFA isn't the panacea the left claims it to be. They believe it is Utopia.
 
My point must have zoomed over your head. Letting the government become the single-payer does not lower costs - see the MIC.

It does. My healthcare costs me nothing at the point of delivery. Free prescriptions, free eye exam, free dental, free doctor visits, free surgery, free scans, free physiotherapy. Yes, I and everyone else, contributed to the NHS via general taxation, but the contributions were minimal and included provision for unemployment benefit, maternity leave, old age pension etc. What a terrible system nationalised healthcare is. I wish we had yours.
 
Last edited:
They'll be thousands more suicides after Trump/GOP trash the ACA's pre-existing conditions protections.

Most Republicans are in favor of the pre-existing conditions but many want to wipe out Obamacare and start all over. You're being a little dishonest. By the way, it is the courts who may rule Obamacare unconstitutional, not Republicans. You can't keep something that is unconstitutional because you like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom