• 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!

The right is telling you that your taxes will be doubled to pay for Medicare for all.

jaeger19 said:
Seriously man.... why must you keep repeated what has been debunked over and over and over again.?

Yep.. we pay more.. because we get advantages by paying more. First.. we pay our people well. We have better wages than most other countries.. which translates to a better economy.
We pay "more'.. because other countries cost shift some of their costs.. like education..to public education.. vs here where the cost of education of medical providers is borne by consumers
We pay more because we pay to have better outcomes..like timeliness, effective care, etc. We rank in the top 3or 5 in those metrics.. DESPITE not having everyone covered.

Your question.. is why should you make healthcare worse for most americans.. to get 10% of americans covered with healthcare insurance.

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Click to expand...

And yet we're ranked nowhere near the top in quality of care, health-care outcomes or most other tangible metrics. You want us to pay more to get less at a lower quality and lower availability. The question is why.
 
Felis Leo said:
Alright, jbander. How much will our taxes have to be raised, not merely to cover the current deficit spending caused by current mandatory entitlement programs and tax cuts, but in order to fully pay for Medicare for All? I would ask that you please cite your sources.
Click to expand...

Let's find a more optimal way to raise taxes. We need better solutions at lower cost not, nothing but repeal.
 
jaeger19 said:
Jbander.. fact is medicare is already spending more money than its taking in. Medicare has only worked financially by people paying in their whole working lives.. and then being able to take out when they are retired and much much older.

Please explain how this is going to work when the people putting into the program can also take out. Please explain how that works out financially.. when Medicare is already in trouble?
Click to expand...
Try putting your thinking hat on, I know you right wingers are totally destroyed if you can't use this issue as a battering ram against anyone who doesn't think the way you do, I'll keep this simple , there is no issue with adding in medicare recipients because everyone in the country would be covered by medicare for all including the people who are on medicare now , So that flushes your question. .. Got that, We spent 3.65 trillion last year on healthcare and the CBO says the medicare for all will cost 34 trillion a decade. We already have 36.5 trillion already accounted for in the pot at the 2018 rate , That's excluding the expected massive increase in healthcare cost over the next decade. The amount without medicare for all price over the decade with expected increase in cost will be 54 trillion and it will be covered in medicare for all insurance at a cost of 35 trillion. It is actually way better then that but I doubt anyone from the right will understand it.
I know this just rips your heart in two. The money is easy to find if it cost more, we will simply take it out of the golden ass holes of this countries free riders that pay no taxes now , you know like Pres. scum bag
 
The right wing is not telling us, our deficit spending is unsustainable, in the long run; even during the best of tax cut economics times.
 
Irredentist said:
Who says that we'd have to make healthcare worse for most Americans? Seems to me that covering 10% of Americans with basic insurance could be done relatively cheaply and easily. All you'd need is the political will.
Click to expand...
The right needs this lie, taking it away from them is like taking their children away from them. They need this to not work because their Gods and leaders tell them to think this way. The money is there right now. Hell if it cost more ,it will be easy to find the people to pay for the difference. I have list of people and companies right now that we can make pay for it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And yet we're ranked nowhere near the top in quality of care, health-care outcomes or most other tangible metrics. You want us to pay more to get less at a lower quality and lower availability. The question is why.
Click to expand...
People like Jaeger are one string puppets they are told how to think and what to think, and in reality they are just Zombies being controlled by anyone they give their control button to. You are asking a lot to have them look at this any other way then they are told to look at it. How can you tell, everyone of them are responding with the same canned answer that was given to them by their Gods and leaders.
 
danielpalos said:
The right wing is not telling us, our deficit spending is unsustainable, in the long run; even during the best of tax cut economics times.
Click to expand...
This issue defines the value of what the right tells this country, basically worthless,they attack democrats for adding to the deficit but in reality they have added more to the deficit then the dems. You want opinions, ask a right winger , you want facts don't ask a right winger.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And yet we're ranked nowhere near the top in quality of care, health-care outcomes or most other tangible metrics. You want us to pay more to get less at a lower quality and lower availability. The question is why.
Click to expand...
I mean even Cubans live longer then Americans.
 
Here's the rights dilemma, they need these type of lies and distortion to even exist, here's their problem, almost every industrialized nations have single payer, but generally pay half the amount we pay in healthcare, so the next step is they are trying to sell the bull**** that we get better care here , when just about every one of the other countries live longer then we do. We are dealing with a group of people who won't think for them selves they except every lie and distortion that the right wing leaders tell them, . Point being you can put over powering facts in front of them and they are as blind as they are told to be.
 
Irredentist said:
Who says that we'd have to make healthcare worse for most Americans? Seems to me that covering 10% of Americans with basic insurance could be done relatively cheaply and easily. All you'd need is the political will.
Click to expand...

Yep.. covering those 10% of AMerican with basic insurance can be done relatively cheaply and easily. So..why should we make things worse for the other90% ofamericans?

For example.. currently Medicaid.. covers the poor.. 100%.. no or extremely small deductibles.. and no copays.

IF those poor folks with Medicaid.. go to medicare and … well.. Medicare has a deductible. Medicare has copays.. so... they would end up with worse coverage. Why would that be better for them?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And yet we're ranked nowhere near the top in quality of care, health-care outcomes or most other tangible metrics. You want us to pay more to get less at a lower quality and lower availability. The question is why.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not quite true. We actually rank near the top in quality of care metrics like effective care.. etc... what drags our ranking down.. is things like "equity of care".. and efficiency of care because we don't have 100% of our population covered.

As far as availability.. we actually have higher availability in the us (if you are the 90% or so that has health insurance of course).. than most countries.. its why we score high on timeliness of care.. and someone like Canada scores near the bottom.

See.. I know how healthcare in the us works and in other countries. For example.. Canada's single payer doesn't cover outpatient medicines. AMericans that have insurance their insurance covers outpatient medicines.. and outpatient therapies etc.

Why would you want Americans to lose coverage for their medications? IF you say.. "but but ..we don't have to do that"...its true...

But we won't have the Savings that Canada does.. now will we.

The problem with your premise is.. there is no free lunch here.
 
jbander said:
Try putting your thinking hat on, I know you right wingers are totally destroyed if you can't use this issue as a battering ram against anyone who doesn't think the way you do, I'll keep this simple , there is no issue with adding in medicare recipients because everyone in the country would be covered by medicare for all including the people who are on medicare now , So that flushes your question. .. Got that,
Click to expand...

Except that makes absolutely no sense. Yes.. I get that everyone will be covered under Medicare. Which means that you will have people taking out of medicare when they are babies, when they are in their teens, 20's 30's etc.

Currently.. people start paying for medicare in their teens and 20's..and cannot take out of medicare for the most part.. until they are 65. And medicare is already in trouble financially. So now you have people taking out.. that have not paid in for their lives.

How does that work? Please explain how that magically works. Oh this?

The money is easy to find if it cost more, we will simply take it out of the golden ass holes of this countries free riders that pay no taxes now , you know like Pres. scum bag
Click to expand...
Well.. if you plan on going after those "a holes"..that don't pay taxes... you are going to be taxing the crap out of a lot of poor and elderly people.. not to mention children. Since that who makes up the bulk of those that don't pay taxes at any one time.

Interesting philosophy you have there.. you want to tax the very people that are having trouble making it.. to provide healthcare insurance... when they already qualify for under Medicaid.

And since Medicare has deductibles, etc.. when Medicaid folks go to medicare.. they are going to have worse insurance than they had before..and now are paying more taxes for it.

Please explain your rationale You could do without the insults since it make you look silly by the way.
 
jbander said:
People like Jaeger are one string puppets they are told how to think and what to think, and in reality they are just Zombies being controlled by anyone they give their control button to. You are asking a lot to have them look at this any other way then they are told to look at it. How can you tell, everyone of them are responding with the same canned answer that was given to them by their Gods and leaders.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I defy you to find anything that indicates.. I am anything "like a one string puppets".

The only person who appears to be a string puppet here is you Jbander. You have no clue how other countries arrive at their lower costs.. and seem to thing that there is some magical free lunch here... where there are no potential negative issues with going to doing what other countries do.

Canada single payer doesn't pay for outpatient therapy and medicines.... is that the type of single payer you envision here?

Frances single payer will pay for abdominal surgery.. but not for the anesthetic it requires... is that what you envision here?

The UK has virtually no private hospitals or providers.. almost every provider is pretty much a government employee..is that what you envision here?

You have no clue what you are talking about.. just regurgitating the fantasy your masters describe to you.. kind of like a utopian fantasy.. where things like wages, etc.. don;t matter..

Who has a canned answer "coming from God"...that's describing the heaven like fantasy?

It ain;t me .
 
jbander said:
As usual the right are being twisted into little knots by the people who control their party and them, Every company and person who makes massive fortunes keeping us healthy and I say that with a chuckle.It's more like keeping us as sick as possible but still alive to give them our money.
So they are told that the middle class will have to dive into this to pay for it. Then they say it will cost 26 trillion over the next decade. This is the bull**** part, right now 3.5 trillion is already being paid for by the individual, the insurance company's or the government(that's the amount in the pot now without raising a dime in taxes).. So they don't need the money they claim, in fact in most studies it will cost less then that for 2020. It is expected to increase at a massive 5.5 % per year over the next decade. Many are suggesting that it will cost 7 trillion at the end of the decade.
The business world will tell you always about the improved profitability through increased production. That is until it has a negative effect on their bottom line, as in medicare for all. Now its the whore of putting it all in a single basket but still something they strive for all the time in business.
Click to expand...

What a crock of crap. Warrens own commissioned study says 52 Trillion over 10 years, Bernie says taxes will have to go way up. The budget is not close to 5.2 trillion a year so how the hell do you think the money gets raised unless you raise the hell out of taxes? You liberal free loaders love something for nothing but there is never something for nothing, always a cost and always someone pays.
 
jbander said:
No what we are saying is that the minute simple minded group that is led around by the ring in their nose, can't think past what their Gods tell them what to think,
Click to expand...

No ring to be found, and no gods are present. All we have is the same bile from those like yourself, who're upset their ideology isn't working.

Oppression and authoritarianism isn't going to win the day.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, and that is with Medicare (for some) having heavily subsidized annual (out-of-pocket) premiums of about $1.6K/person. That would make Medicare (for all) cost a family of four $6.4K/year ($534/month) in premiums with its current coverage of about 80% of medical care costs.
Click to expand...
We are talking about medicare for all, what is your point of your comment. This is a single payer program. This system is paid for by Tax dollars not out of your packet, out of taxes.
 
Oborosen said:
No ring to be found, and no gods are present. All we have is the same bile from those like yourself, who're upset their ideology isn't working.

Oppression and authoritarianism isn't going to win the day.
Click to expand...
From the party that is trying to turn us into a dictatorship, your opinion has lot of value , choke gag!
 
jbander said:
We are talking about medicare for all, what is your point of your comment. This is a single payer program. This system is paid for by Tax dollars not out of your packet, out of taxes.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance in asserting that taxation is not taking money from people is noted. Whether the taxation is accomplished by withholding from one's paycheck or applied at some later point (e.g. sales or wealth taxation), it still has the result of reducing money otherwise available to taxpayers.
 
Integrityrespec said:
What a crock of crap. Warrens own commissioned study says 52 Trillion over 10 years, Bernie says taxes will have to go way up. The budget is not close to 5.2 trillion a year so how the hell do you think the money gets raised unless you raise the hell out of taxes? You liberal free loaders love something for nothing but there is never something for nothing, always a cost and always someone pays.
Click to expand...
She is honest and talking about what it would cost for medicare for all. Her medicare for all, the first year would be about 3.65 trillion which is what we paid out in 2018 for health care..inflation and increased cost that is expected over those ten year would increase the yearly cost to 7 trillion a year. So the average cost over ten years will cost 54 trillion without any medicare for all program . Just keeping it the same as it is now. And her medicare for all will cost 52 million. So there is no cost increase with these numbers, there is a saving of two trillion and it includes everyone. You people don't have a clue what your talking about, but you at least came up with a number. Which is a saving of 2 trillion over a decade.
 
jbander said:
She is honest and talking about what it would cost for medicare for all. Her medicare for all, the first year would be about 3.65 trillion which is what we paid out in 2018 for health care..inflation and increased cost that is expected over those ten year would increase the yearly cost to 7 trillion a year. So the average cost over ten years will cost 54 trillion without any medicare for all program . Just keeping it the same as it is now. And her medicare for all will cost 52 million. So there is no cost increase with these numbers, there is a saving of two trillion and it includes everyone. You people don't have a clue what your talking about, but you at least came up with a number. Which is a saving of 2 trillion over a decade.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity.. where does this amazing savings come from?
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually that's not quite true. We actually rank near the top in quality of care metrics like effective care.. etc... what drags our ranking down.. is things like "equity of care".. and efficiency of care because we don't have 100% of our population covered.

As far as availability.. we actually have higher availability in the us (if you are the 90% or so that has health insurance of course).. than most countries.. its why we score high on timeliness of care.. and someone like Canada scores near the bottom.

See.. I know how healthcare in the us works and in other countries. For example.. Canada's single payer doesn't cover outpatient medicines. AMericans that have insurance their insurance covers outpatient medicines.. and outpatient therapies etc.

Why would you want Americans to lose coverage for their medications? IF you say.. "but but ..we don't have to do that"...its true...

But we won't have the Savings that Canada does.. now will we.

The problem with your premise is.. there is no free lunch here.
Click to expand...
Disregarding your gibberish, We pay more for healthcare in this country then any other industrial nation and the quality of care is no where near the top in the industrial nation. For Gods sake the Cubans live longer then we do.---------"(Reuters Health) - The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates, a new study suggests.

More doctor visits and hospital stays aren’t the problem. Americans use roughly the same amount of health services as people in other affluent nations, the study found.

Instead, health spending may be higher in the U.S. because prices are steeper for drugs, medical devices, physician and nurse salaries and administrative costs to process medical claims, researchers report in JAMA.

“There’s no doubt that administrative complexity and higher drug prices both matter - as do higher prices for pretty much everything in U.S. healthcare,” said lead study author Irene Papanicolas of the London School of Economics and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston. "
 
jaeger19 said:
Except that makes absolutely no sense. Yes.. I get that everyone will be covered under Medicare. Which means that you will have people taking out of medicare when they are babies, when they are in their teens, 20's 30's etc.

Currently.. people start paying for medicare in their teens and 20's..and cannot take out of medicare for the most part.. until they are 65. And medicare is already in trouble financially. So now you have people taking out.. that have not paid in for their lives.

How does that work? Please explain how that magically works. Oh this?

Well.. if you plan on going after those "a holes"..that don't pay taxes... you are going to be taxing the crap out of a lot of poor and elderly people.. not to mention children. Since that who makes up the bulk of those that don't pay taxes at any one time.

Interesting philosophy you have there.. you want to tax the very people that are having trouble making it.. to provide healthcare insurance... when they already qualify for under Medicaid.

And since Medicare has deductibles, etc.. when Medicaid folks go to medicare.. they are going to have worse insurance than they had before..and now are paying more taxes for it.

Please explain your rationale You could do without the insults since it make you look silly by the way.[/QUOTE Your opinion means nothing here , without numbers you are saying nothing. The Points you are making mean nothing because you are making crap up to argue against this and you simply don't contribute anything other then your opinion. You are responding the way you are told to respond and your taking the word of someone like Pres scum Bag , who is as lame as any man and is just a walking talking lie in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
Oborosen said:
No ring to be found, and no gods are present. All we have is the same bile from those like yourself, who're upset their ideology isn't working.

Oppression and authoritarianism isn't going to win the day.
Click to expand...
Either you contribute or your gone, do you think that I would care what the enemy of my country thinks of me. You are wasting bandwidth if you continue you are gone. Say go ahead.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You keep using the fact that $X of "private" money is now being spent, but never explain how it would be converted to government money. That was Warren's mission - to explain how that transformation from private spending to public spending (taxation) would be accomplished. Making silly assertions that those "details" don't matter is dishonest - since that is the main debating point.

You also ignore that the mission of UHC (M4A?) is to provide additional medical care to those now not receiving it. After all, without wanting that additional spending then there is no reason to push for M4A.

Trying to pretend that M4A would cost no more or actually save money is pure fantasy. Even if those who now have medical care (and pay for it) were to save the advertised $2K/year (gong from $10K/person to $8K/person annually) that does not mean that folks who now lack medical care would suddenly cost nothing to provide each of them additional medical care.
Click to expand...

What she said is shell get it in payroll tax from the employer. Instead of my employer buying me health insurance, the govt will take that money and give me Medicare. And since half of the country doesnt work, she'll double the employer payroll tax to pay for them (which of course they pass down to me and consumers).

Of course, the cost will be much higher than expected. It always is. So I get less wages/higher prices and lose my much better HMO.
 
jaeger19 said:
Out of curiosity.. where does this amazing savings come from?
Click to expand...
Read the comment this isn't rocket science . If you can't see your questioned answered in the comment , then why in the hell would I waste my time with a question that has been answered maybe a 1/2 dozen times already,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom