• 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!

Support Drops For Medicare For All

Slyfox696 said:
That's one way to say it. The other way to see it is over half of Americans support Medicare for All.

"51 percent of those surveyed in October favored Medicare for All...compared to the 53 percent who said they supported it last month."
Click to expand...

Considering that likely starts with the 44% who pay no federal income tax, it is surprisingly low to me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Considering that likely starts with the 44% who pay no federal income tax, it is surprisingly low to me.
Click to expand...

How many of those already get Medicare or qualify for Medicaid?
 
chuckiechan said:
People know you cant have open borders and free stuff for everyone who stumbles in with no skills and a high birth rate.
Click to expand...
Are these the same immigrants who conservatives claim are taking their jobs?

It is getting to the point where they are Schrodingers Immigrants because they are simultaneously too lazy to work but are also taking your jobs.
The only people with no marketable skills are the MAGAites from red states who have slashed education and job retraining because of tax cuts. Somehow these same people oppose the government subsiding post-K-12 education when they are among those who need it to find a job that isn't manual labor.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Considering that likely starts with the 44% who pay no federal income tax, it is surprisingly low to me.
Click to expand...
It likely doesn't, as a significant percentage of those who do not pay federal income tax support Republicans.

I expect better from you than that. :)
 
chuckiechan said:
People know you cant have open borders and free stuff for everyone who stumbles in with no skills and a high birth rate.
Click to expand...

But what about the children? It's always about the liddle children.... :lol:
 
Lisa said:
How many of those already get Medicare or qualify for Medicaid?
Click to expand...

None of them qualify for Medicare which is only available for citizens and LPRs.

Illegals can sometimes get Medicaid if the state extends it to them. In California our idiot governor and corrupt legislature has done just that.
 
eman623 said:
None of them qualify for Medicare which is only available for citizens and LPRs.

Illegals can sometimes get Medicaid if the state extends it to them. In California, our idiot governor and corrupt legislature have done just that.
Click to expand...

Whoosh........................

I wasn't referring to immigrants in my previous reply that you sourced. I was referring to the 40+% of Americans that do not pay federal income tax.
 
Why not just be willing to seek rational compromises.
There's a Medicare 4 All bill but it is not going to ever go anywhere in this Senate.
There can be 549 competing Medicare 4 All bills but none of them are going to get a hearing in the Senate.

There can be 549 THOUSAND, and STILL none of them will be heard in the Senate.
So at this point, a Medicare 4 All bill and three bucks will get you a Starbucks Frappacino in a bottle.

The point is, there are also moves to restore the ACA and expand a robust public option, too.
At this point there's no sure path for EITHER except a win in 2020.
If the Dems don't win in 2020, the ACA is history, so is M4A and so is the public option.
If the Dems DO win in 2020 that doesn't mean M4A is guaranteed, it just means it gets a hearing.
If it's not a good bill, it's not a good bill, simple as that.
California had a UHC bill brought to the governor's desk and he turned it down because it was a sloppy piece of crap.
He didn't say he was against CA UHC, he said he was against THAT UHC plan, because it was a lousy bill.

Have a little faith in the notion that we can still maybe practice sound lawmaking, if we work together.
 
Lisa said:
How many of those already get Medicare or qualify for Medicaid?
Click to expand...

Medicare (for some), which I now have, has premiums, deductibles and co-pays yet is available only to the elderly and disabled. I would agree that Medicaid is likely as good (and "free") as M4A would be, but that is certainly no reason to oppose it.

My point was asking folks if they would like the federal government to pay some of their current bills is (or should be) a no brainer for those paying no federal income taxes (FIT) at all. Even for those paying some FIT, asking them if they would pay $50/month more in FIT for a $100/month reduction in some other current expense is also a silly question.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It likely doesn't, as a significant percentage of those who do not pay federal income tax support Republicans.

I expect better from you than that. :)
Click to expand...

M4A is not a federal medical care insurance program which covers folks based on how they vote. The difference between TrumpCare and M4A is simply the label assigned to it.
 
I suspect that Medicare for all would be bad for those of us already getting Medicare because we're over 65. They would probably cut back ours in order to pay for everyone. Not caring that we worked all our lives to get this. And Medicare actually sucks, because it only pays 80%, so we need to buy supplemental. And $130 is taken out of our SS to pay for basic Medicare.

If everyone gets Medicare will it suck as much as ours does now? And will ours suck even more than it does, since the government will probably cut ours to help pay for everyone?
 
Accurate headline fix: “Support for Medicare for All statistically the same as last month”
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Medicare (for some), which I now have, has premiums, deductibles and co-pays yet is available only to the elderly and disabled. I would agree that Medicaid is likely as good (and "free") as M4A would be, but that is certainly no reason to oppose it.

My point was asking folks if they would like the federal government to pay some of their current bills is (or should be) a no brainer for those paying no federal income taxes (FIT) at all. Even for those paying some FIT, asking them if they would pay $50/month more in FIT for a $100/month reduction in some other current expense is also a silly question.
Click to expand...

You'd be crazy to say no because the universal healthcare cost would be cheaper than the current cost for private insurance unless you plan to pay for both. It would also be lower than the current deductions and prescription costs for medications that are out of pocket.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I suspect that Medicare for all would be bad for those of us already getting Medicare because we're over 65. They would probably cut back ours in order to pay for everyone. Not caring that we worked all our lives to get this. And Medicare actually sucks, because it only pays 80%, so we need to buy supplemental. And $130 is taken out of our SS to pay for basic Medicare.

If everyone gets Medicare will it suck as much as ours does now? And will ours suck even more than it does, since the government will probably cut ours to help pay for everyone?
Click to expand...

Those in favor of Medicare for all simply aren't concerned about the real impact it will have on individuals, only with the ideal they've created in their heads. I'm not saying that they're bad people, but they don't seem too concerned with the overall quality of healthcare people receive. This should sound familiar; after Obama got his insurance bill passed and signed, many insured folks complained about lower quality and higher costs. Pragmatism isn't a quality the left possess. 'Pass it now, find out what's in it later', to quote Pelosi.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
M4A is not a federal medical care insurance program which covers folks based on how they vote.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think we're all aware of that...the point is that you claimed 44% of the 51% support came from those who don't pay federal taxes, but given that a significant percentage of those not paying taxes support a political party that does not support Medicare For All, then your suggestion that 44% of the support is coming from those who do not pay taxes would be flatly false.
 
truthatallcost said:
Those in favor of Medicare for all simply aren't concerned about the real impact it will have on individuals, only with the ideal they've created in their heads. I'm not saying that they're bad people, but they don't seem too concerned with the overall quality of healthcare people receive. This should sound familiar; after Obama got his insurance bill passed and signed, many insured folks complained about lower quality and higher costs. Pragmatism isn't a quality the left possesses. 'Pass it now, find out what's in it later', to quote Pelosi.
Click to expand...
Is this a condemnation of the healthcare field and the concept of supply and demand?

The market needed time to train and hire more people to meet the increased demand for medical services. It was an expected problem but it soon disappeared.
 
Lisa said:
You'd be crazy to say no because the universal healthcare cost would be cheaper than the current cost for private insurance unless you plan to pay for both. It would also be lower than the current deductions and prescription costs for medications that are out of pocket.
Click to expand...

This is the talking point (sales pitch?), but we do not see that lower cost/better results having from single-payer public K-12 education or with the (highly profitable) MIC with single-payer national defense spending. The argument that since government A did X decades ago and saved money that government B can do Y now and save money too, is long on hope and short on logic.
 
Lisa said:
Is this a condemnation of the healthcare field and the concept of supply and demand?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of respect for people who work in the medical field, particularly in emergency medicine. There's no shortage of demand for medical services, the problem is with supply and keeping the quality of healthcare high when workloads are ever increasing.

The market needed time to train and hire more people to meet the increased demand for medical services. It was an expected problem but it soon disappeared.
Click to expand...

People are still traveling to Mexico for medical procedures and medication 10 years later. I don't believe that everyone in this country receives decent medical care, and adding a new burden like MC for All would likely once again put a significant strain on healthcare. Medicare primarily covers the elderly who've paid into the system for the majority of their lives. It isn't fair to ask them to pay more or receive lower quality care in order to give insurance to the tens of millions of poor people our government created in the past 20 years. It's a bit like forcing an elderly grandmother to give up her seat on the bus so that a young, healthy immigrant can sit down instead.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes, I think we're all aware of that...the point is that you claimed 44% of the 51% support came from those who don't pay federal taxes, but given that a significant percentage of those not paying taxes support a political party that does not support Medicare For All, then your suggestion that 44% of the support is coming from those who do not pay taxes would be flatly false.
Click to expand...

Rest assured that plenty of republicant voters gladly accept "safety net" help - the idea (assumption?) that poor folks refuse to accept or do not support government "safety net" financial help simply because they vote for republicants (based on 2A rights, abortion, religious freedom or other issues) is ridiculous. My evidence for that is plenty of red states get loads of "safety net" assistance.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is the talking point (sales pitch?), but we do not see that lower cost/better results having from single-payer public K-12 education or with the (highly profitable) MIC with single-payer national defense spending. The argument that since government A did X decades ago and saved money that government B can do Y now and save money too, is long on hope and short on logic.
Click to expand...

“Decades ago” is a laughable attempt at deflection. Every government on the planet that did this is saving money today too.

Cost is a pathetic argument against universal healthcare that flies in the face of the evidence provided by, again, every system of universal healthcare that has ever existed.

So yes, actually, I am arguing this. Every instance of this in human history has been successful from a cost perspective, therefore it’s likely we can save money doing it to. What the **** else should I conclude? Can you tell me what magical phenomenon created a barrier to universal healthcare in the last few decades that somehow also magically does not effect nations that already implemented it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom