• 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!

If Medicare for All is so bad, what should Americans have instead?

Blue Donkey said:
It has all the details about his plan, which goes far beyond drug prices.
Click to expand...

A plan from a guy who couldn't even hold a job in the private sector. A guy who identifies as a socialist, but got kicked out of a commune for being too lazy. This is the guy who's going to design a healthcare plan for 330 million people.
 
aociswundumho said:
A plan from a guy who couldn't even hold a job in the private sector. A guy who identifies as a socialist, but got kicked out of a commune for being too lazy. This is the guy who's going to design a healthcare plan for 330 million people.
Click to expand...

Its gonna be great
 
aociswundumho said:
A plan from a guy who couldn't even hold a job in the private sector. A guy who identifies as a socialist, but got kicked out of a commune for being too lazy. This is the guy who's going to design a healthcare plan for 330 million people.
Click to expand...

A guy who spent his whole up till now not mattering as he made a good living at it.....this is what stops me.....that is what The Failed Intelligentsia do.

This is what I am supposed to vote for?
 
Craig234 said:
Let me help you. What you should think about it is that it's the best choice. The Lancet just released a study showing Medicare for All would reduce US healthcare costs by $450 billion, and save 68,000 lives (more than all the US casualties in Vietnam) every year.
Click to expand...
[emoji38] the Lancet :D
 
cpwill said:
That's about as neat an encapsulation of our times as anything else I've seen.
Click to expand...

You misread it. It doesn't mean 'there will be no Medicare Part D because Bush created it', it means 'there will not be the Medicare Part D program Bush created as a corrupt reward giving hundreds of billions in windfall profits to the drug companies to reward them for being the biggest donors to Republicans, requiring the government pay full list price for all drugs in the program'.
 
Craig, I also was thinking about the doughnut holes and limitations on which drugs are covered.

The first time Sherrod Brown ran for the U.S. Senate, he said it was because of Medicare Part D.
 
Craig234 said:
You misread it. It doesn't mean 'there will be no Medicare Part D because Bush created it', it means 'there will not be the Medicare Part D program Bush created as a corrupt reward giving hundreds of billions in windfall profits to the drug companies to reward them for being the biggest donors to Republicans, requiring the government pay full list price for all drugs in the program'.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with this "hundreds of billiond in windfall profits to drug companies". I call this number bogus. The amount you stated is larger than ALL the profit made by pharma.

While the program along with ACA was poorly thought out,does not people here license to make numbers up.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Craig, I also was thinking about the doughnut holes and limitations on which drugs are covered.

The first time Sherrod Brown ran for the U.S. Senate, he said it was because of Medicare Part D.
Click to expand...

You're right, but some of that was fixed under Obama.

The negotiation clause Republicans added was not. What I was saying he misread, was that he misread your saying no more 'as it was passed by Bush' to mean 'they'd get rid of it simply because Bush had passed it', rather than what you were actually saying, the program's flaws Bush did would be ended.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, the most respected Medical publication in the world.
Click to expand...

:) This would be the same publication that took every single rumor of a casualty and called it a high confidence when tallying up the Iraqi war dead, and who claim that "people who lose their lives due to lack of insurance" can be defined as "anyone who, at any point, has lacked insurance, and who died within a few years of that occurring"?

Those claims have been - repeatedly - debunked.

Lancet knows what they want the result to be, and they are willing to do what they have to in order to get it :shrug:
 
Craig234 said:
You misread it. It doesn't mean 'there will be no Medicare Part D because Bush created it', it means 'there will not be the Medicare Part D program Bush created as a corrupt reward giving hundreds of billions in windfall profits to the drug companies to reward them for being the biggest donors to Republicans, requiring the government pay full list price for all drugs in the program'.
Click to expand...

Good call. It is only a popular benefit that allows people to access needed benefits at affordable prices and - unique among government programs - managed to come in under budget. :) Can't have that!
 
cpwill said:
Good call. It is only a popular benefit that allows people to access needed benefits at affordable prices and - unique among government programs - managed to come in under budget. :) Can't have that!
Click to expand...

It was a program created out of corruption. It was deigned to help big pharma first and citizens only incidentally. It offered affordable drugs to some, raised prices for others, but all the while unnecessarily gave hundred of billions too many dollars to the biggest Republican donor industry at the time.

The story has gotten a bit better.

The doughnut hold of coverage was improved; it is a popular benefit with recipients.

More improvement is needed, whether direct fixes such as negotiating prices to the cost, or Medicare for All replacing it.
 
cpwill said:
:) This would be the same publication that took every single rumor of a casualty and called it a high confidence when tallying up the Iraqi war dead, and who claim that "people who lose their lives due to lack of insurance" can be defined as "anyone who, at any point, has lacked insurance, and who died within a few years of that occurring"?

Those claims have been - repeatedly - debunked.

Lancet knows what they want the result to be, and they are willing to do what they have to in order to get it :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's had its controversies, but as Wikipedia describes it: "The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals."
 
Craig234 said:
It was a program created out of corruption. It was deigned to help big pharma first and citizens only incidentally.
Click to expand...

What, like Obamacare? Gosh.

It offered affordable drugs to some, raised prices for others, but all the while unnecessarily gave hundred of billions too many dollars to the biggest Republican donor industry at the time.

The story has gotten a bit better.

The doughnut hold of coverage was improved; it is a popular benefit with recipients.

More improvement is needed, whether direct fixes such as negotiating prices to the cost, or Medicare for All replacing it.
Click to expand...

:shrug: we likely disagree on the improvement needed. Medicare Part D remains a popular benefit that allows people to access needed benefits at affordable prices and - unique among government programs - managed to come in under budget. If anything, we should be making the rest of Medicare look more like D.
 
Craig234 said:
Right-wing poster (still has 'Hillary's e-mail server' ranting) posts right-wing paper's article on messaging from a right-wing 'institute' (Fraser Institute) promoting for-profit systems.
Click to expand...

It's happening in Denmark too.
 
American said:
It's happening in Denmark too.
Click to expand...

The people of Denmark are happy with the healthcare system. They're not privatizing it; they might make other changes.
 
Craig234 said:
The people of Denmark are happy with the healthcare system. They're not privatizing it; they might make other changes.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself.
 
Craig234 said:
The people of Denmark are happy with the healthcare system. They're not privatizing it; they might make other changes.
Click to expand...

They will never switch to our model
 
American said:
‘Socialist’ Nordic Countries Are Actually Moving Toward Private Health Care

Try to keep up, this is almost a year old.
Click to expand...

You post lying propaganda from a Heritage hack who throws around the unqualified word 'socialist'.

Gotta love their logic. They lie about Bernie's claims, using the unqualified word 'socialist', and then say the Nordic systems Bernie praises aren't even real socialist - debunking their own lie. If you continue to post garbage, don't expect a reply. Then you have an obnoxious post to boot while you post clueless things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom