• 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

I don't think eliminating private insurance is either feasible, or the best approach for this country's situation. I think a hybrid system like the one in Switzerland is a better fit. That said, without the means to control cost, it will continue to make this a serious issue.

That's just it. Neither side is trying to control costs. The left's idea of controlling costs is to either charge it to Uncle Sam or stiff the providers with smaller payments.
 
I do know. I've looked at the data, and have debunked right wing CT many times. I'm just at the "why bother?" stage now, sort of like after I debunked 9/11 arguments for years. It didn't do any good, so there's really no point.

The data is skewed. You can't compare them. In the other countries most everyone is in the same boat. In the US figures you look at are totally skewed because you have those on the lower end of the totem poll who are in bad shape and you average those together with those on the higher end of the totem poll who have great healthcare and then you get the average figure you look at in your statistics you find. If the US went to the same system other countries use, half of the US would get much better care and half would get much worse care. Where the US is concerned you can't get an accurate picture looking at an average statistic. I represent the half who get much better care than that of other countries and I don't want my healthcare to get worse. You look at average statistics and try to tell me that I won't get worse health care. I will.
 
The data is skewed. You can't compare them. In the other countries most everyone is in the same boat. In the US figures you look at are totally skewed because you have those on the lower end of the totem poll who are in bad shape and you average those together with those on the higher end of the totem poll who have great healthcare and then you get the average figure you look at in your statistics you find. If the US went to the same system other countries use, half of the US would get much better care and half would get much worse care. Where the US is concerned you can't get an accurate picture looking at an average statistic. I represent the half who get much better care than that of other countries and I don't want my healthcare to get worse. You look at average statistics and try to tell me that I won't get worse health care. I will.

Like I said, I don't buy the CT.
 
Like I said, I don't buy the CT.

LOL. It's not about CT. It's about the numbers you are looking at. Do you deny that US figures are an average of everyone from one end of the totem poll to the other end, and everything in between? When you look at stats from other countries it is a very small totem poll, if a totem poll at all. Millions in the US, including myself, will get far worse healthcare than what they have in other countries. Maybe yours will be better but millions will be worse.
 
That's not the question at all. Several Democrats want Medicare for all, which is what this couple had (Medicare). Didn't seem to help them. Democrats want Medicare For All so that these things don't happen. Apparently they are wrong. Medicare isn't what it is cracked up to be, which is why you have to buy several additional supplement programs. Medicare by itself, with no supplements, sucks and yet this is the basket Democrats want to put their eggs into. Sounds good to get votes but if you look at the nuts and bolts, it's terrible, just like it was for this couple.

By your stupid logic, any murder/suicide involving a couple with outstanding medical debt, and private insurance, is an indictment of the private insurance industry.
 
That's just it. Neither side is trying to control costs. The left's idea of controlling costs is to either charge it to Uncle Sam or stiff the providers with smaller payments.

The only major way to control costs is to reduce cost growth in payments to providers. What do you think is driving high healthcare costs?

*Hint, the anesthesiologist with two homes, 3 - 80k cars, and 800k a year in income is a big part of the problem.
 
Elderly couple found dead from murder-suicide after they couldn’t afford wife’s healthcare: ‘We will be in the front bedroom’


I thought Medicare for all was supposed to be the answer. Apparently it isn't all it is cracked up to be.

You do realize that because of George W Bush, Medicare is legally barred from negotiating drug prices with drug companies right? That a part D plan is basically worth toilet paper unless you can afford a couple hundred bucks a month and are super healthy.

And it's the right blocking that from being changed.

You are literally bitching that a solution to everyone's problem isn't good enough because your side keeps sabotaging it. And expecting us to just go, ok, guess we'll just die, sorry to bother you...
 
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.

All the information I read says mediacare covers about 80% of accepted cost. Meaning you have to buy supplemental. The social policy advocated by Bernie and Liz will be free they say. Oh, what the y mean is free at point of service after they have taxed you to death. The countries touted as being such good socialist governments, are taxing at about 60% of a persons income making $60, 000. I wonder how you pay for your other needs with the 40% left.
 
LOL. It's not about CT. It's about the numbers you are looking at. Do you deny that US figures are an average of everyone from one end of the totem poll to the other end, and everything in between? When you look at stats from other countries it is a very small totem poll, if a totem poll at all. Millions in the US, including myself, will get far worse healthcare than what they have in other countries. Maybe yours will be better but millions will be worse.

what works in the rest of the first world will work here, too. and yes, it will.
 
All the information I read says mediacare covers about 80% of accepted cost. Meaning you have to buy supplemental. The social policy advocated by Bernie and Liz will be free they say. Oh, what the y mean is free at point of service after they have taxed you to death. The countries touted as being such good socialist governments, are taxing at about 60% of a persons income making $60, 000. I wonder how you pay for your other needs with the 40% left.

By demanding more socialism (aka income redistribution), of course.
 
The "choice" Democrats want to force on everyone sucks all by itself unless you buy several supplements. This is the fine print that the left does not want voting citizen to know about. Americans will be taxed much more to get "Medicare For All" but Medicare by itself sucks without all of the additional supplements. So, not only will you be paying much more in taxes but if you buy the supplements you will be paying even more. And if you don't buy the additional supplements, you've got what these people had, nothing and facing bankruptcy.

If Medicare for all is ever passed, it will be even worse then that as Medicare for all would in effect kill the private insurance market and the supplemental Medicare plans would die along with it. Then to keep the costs under control, the government would be forced to either pass on the cost of expanding medicare to all to recipients or do as the UK is doing and ration the Healthcare Medicare provides. That will be further complicated by massive doctor shortages as fewer and fewer go into the medical field.
 
I also have preexisting conditions. If given the choice between first world health care and letting Republicans try to chip away at preexisting condition protections, I know which one I'd choose. Also, I don't believe right wing CT about single payer, so that makes the choice even easier.

With all due respect, you are believing what you want to believe and rejecting the rest. Republicans and even Trump are willing to work with the democrats on pre-existing conditions. However if we were to go with a medicare for all system, pre-existing condition coverage, would not mean much. And without a supplemental plan, Medicare is not worth cheap toilet paper. The deductibles alone make it a joke. The hospital insurance alone comes with a nearly $2000.00 annual deductible. And under a Medicare for all system, the supplemental plans will go away.
 
Probably not an insignificant number. I've been far enough into the thought process to reach the part where I see how difficult it would be logistically and emotionally. Then I get angry that I even had to consider it. The only way I see it getting past the thought stage is if the orange idiot actually starts a civil war. I won't have my family put at risk because sixty million people went insane and joined a stupid cult. That's probably a "**** this" point for me.

If there is a civil war again in America, it would almost certainly be started by that alt-left group of morons known as ANTIFA.
 
The only major way to control costs is to reduce cost growth in payments to providers. What do you think is driving high healthcare costs?

*Hint, the anesthesiologist with two homes, 3 - 80k cars, and 800k a year in income is a big part of the problem.

You mean that anesthesiologist that keeps you alive during surgery?
 
With all due respect, you are believing what you want to believe and rejecting the rest. Republicans and even Trump are willing to work with the democrats on pre-existing conditions. However if we were to go with a medicare for all system, pre-existing condition coverage, would not mean much. And without a supplemental plan, Medicare is not worth cheap toilet paper. The deductibles alone make it a joke. The hospital insurance alone comes with a nearly $2000.00 annual deductible. And under a Medicare for all system, the supplemental plans will go away.

You and I won't find common ground on this issue.
 
If there is a civil war again in America, it would almost certainly be started by that alt-left group of morons known as ANTIFA.

Spare me the talking points.
 
The "choice" Democrats want to force on everyone sucks all by itself unless you buy several supplements. This is the fine print that the left does not want voting citizen to know about. Americans will be taxed much more to get "Medicare For All" but Medicare by itself sucks without all of the additional supplements. So, not only will you be paying much more in taxes but if you buy the supplements you will be paying even more. And if you don't buy the additional supplements, you've got what these people had, nothing and facing bankruptcy.

This is silly. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Is there a subject you are educated on>? If so, let me know and we can talk.
 
Elderly couple found dead from murder-suicide after they couldn’t afford wife’s healthcare: ‘We will be in the front bedroom’


I thought Medicare for all was supposed to be the answer. Apparently it isn't all it is cracked up to be.

  • Cover primary and preventive care, prescription drugs, dental and vision care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, as well as maternity, newborn and long-term care through a government-run plan
  • Let Americans see any doctor they want to with no deductibles or copays
  • Effectively end the private health insurance market

    linkypoo...

Bring on your next lie conservative.
 
You say you don't believe it so that is confessing that you don't know. I have talked with thousands and thousands in other countries and what they describe as getting I would not want in a million years. Even before Obamacare I had great health insurance, even with pre-existing conditions. It cost me more than others paid, but it was far cheaper than after Obamacare went into effect.

"Thousands and thousands"? Unlikely. As it stands the WHO ranks America 36th for quality of healthcare in the global rankings with many above the US, including France at #!, having a nationalised healthcare system alongside the private option. They must be doing something right, no?
 
All the information I read says mediacare covers about 80% of accepted cost. Meaning you have to buy supplemental. The social policy advocated by Bernie and Liz will be free they say. Oh, what the y mean is free at point of service after they have taxed you to death. The countries touted as being such good socialist governments, are taxing at about 60% of a persons income making $60, 000. I wonder how you pay for your other needs with the 40% left.

I don't know which countries you refer to, but in Britain the rates are not even close to what you suggest.

National Insurance rates - Which?
 
If Medicare for all is ever passed, it will be even worse then that as Medicare for all would in effect kill the private insurance market and the supplemental Medicare plans would die along with it. Then to keep the costs under control, the government would be forced to either pass on the cost of expanding medicare to all to recipients or do as the UK is doing and ration the Healthcare Medicare provides. That will be further complicated by massive doctor shortages as fewer and fewer go into the medical field.

The NHS is 'rationed' because successive conservative governments here have slashed funding for essential services, instead giving massive tax cuts to those who don't need them. Sound familiar? The private sector is doing fine with over 12% of our population using the expensive option.
 
You mean that anesthesiologist that keeps you alive during surgery?

That gets paid more here than he or she would in any country on earth. I work in IT. My salary is not twice as much as it would be anywhere else on earth. If it was, the the IT industry would have a very distorting effect on our economy.

Let's say you have an individual market insurance premium of 14k a year for your family. Of that, about 800 dollars at the most is insurance industry profits. Where do you think the rest of that goes? It's providers. You have oncologists slowing down the rates of infusion just increase billing. You have plastic surgeons coming into ICU, doing a handful of facial stitches after trauma, and billing 20k for it. You got neurologists billing 5k for less than 5 minutes of their time glancing at a CT scan. You got an entire consulting industry that has cropped up in the last 20 years whose only purpose is to show providers how to increase their billing all the way to the legal line of fraud. My wife worked in insurance defense for nearly 20 years. She would pull records and billing all the time. You would not believe the kinds of things providers do when it comes to billing. If it were any other industry, we would call it fraud.

No one is arguing that specialists and providers should not be paid well. Of course they should be, but when you got orthopedic surgeons bringing in better than 800k a year when they would be making 400k a year in any other modern developed nation, someone is paying for that, and its you and me.

Everyone wants to blame insurers. I don't like insurance companies, but they are not the main problem here. People want to blame pharma, drugs are just 10% of over all health spending. Republicans push HSAs so you pay for your own routine care. I am all for HSAs, but routine care is only 7% of healthcare spending. Its nothing. That is why you can pay it out of an HSA.

Fully half of all healthcare markets in this country are provider monopolies where one health system owns all the providers at all levels in that market. Insurers have no ability to even negotiate prices in those markets, the providers charge what they want. Now, I am not saying that all providers are out there gouging consumers. That isn't the case at all, but some are, and what are you going to do about it? You going to tell the cancer hospital, "No, I don't want to pay 80k a month for cancer treatment, just let me die a horrible death.". You going to tell the cardiologist "No, I don't want a 150k heart surgery, just me die.". Hell, you have severe trauma and spend better than 100k before you are even conscious. The normal laws of supply and demand do not work in such a system. It's not like going out and buying a car and forgoing the purchase if it is too expensive. If you need catastrophic or chronic care, which are the biggest drivers of high healthcare costs, the choice is either pay what the provider tells you and your insurer to pay, or die. That is why no one wants our system. No country on earth wants our healthcare system. Anyone else on earth could do it the way we do it here and no one wants to. There is a reason for that, and part of it is 800k a year anesthesiologists.
 
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.
Ask the American Indians how well government rum medicine works. Government run mean hundreds of thousands of government employees sopping up Billions of dollars instead of that money being spent on health ins.
 
You and I won't find common ground on this issue.

Agreed. You are dead set on a Medicare for all type system. I am dead set against it as I know what the result would be. And it would not be the panacea that you think it would be. I respect that you want something better then the system that exists now. I do as well. Medicare for all simply would not get us there. And it would end up costing you more.
 
Back
Top Bottom