Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’

[Obscurity]

The government mandates are similar to what Obama told the nuns: 'You can opt out of contraceptive coverage for religious reasons if I say you can and I say you can't.'

Explain to me how medicare for all is government taking over healthcare.

 

[sjmay]

Explain to me how medicare for all is government taking over healthcare.

Rather simple....Medicare is a GOVERNMENT run entity, if you do Medicare for all, government would be taking it,

If you disagree, then tell me, if we move to Medicare for All.....who would be running it?

 

[Moderate Right]

That is fine for people that have employers....but America is about entrepreneurship. A system that tethers employees to an employer so they can have healthcare (or because they have a pre-exisiting condition) is actually contrary to the best interests of the American economy. One of the best things about the PPACA was it was a giant step in favor of individuals taking responsibility for their healthcare and unbundling from something that we had to get from an employer.

70% Of Americans are happy with their employer based health insurance. I can't think for the life of me why the left would like to screw over 70% of the population to further their liberal agenda. Just help the 30% without screwing everyone else.

 

[Moderate Right]

I understand that many people are happy with their employer based plans. However, their employers are often in an untenable situation because every year, offering those plans becomes more and more expensive. Employers are paying on average 70% of the 14,800 dollars year to provide coverage for employees and their dependents.

Cost of Employer Health Coverage to Rise in 2019

So sure, everyone likes what they have. I like what I have, but that doesn't mean it is sustainable.

All of a sudden you lefties care about employers? Give me a break. Bottom line, you want to screw over 70% of the population to further your liberal agenda.

 

[Obscurity]

Rather simple....Medicare is a GOVERNMENT run entity, if you do Medicare for all, government would be taking it,

If you disagree, then tell me, if we move to Medicare for All.....who would be running it?

Medicare is not run by the government. The PAYMENT SYSTEM which pays doctors is run by the government.

Medicare for all is NOT government run healthcare.

Not a single republican proposal has made sense and not a single republican in congress apparently has a real proposal. So what do we do? Stay paralyzed in an unethical system that profiteers off purely circumstancial coincidence, such as catching the flu, or do we move to a common sense system that ensure the life, liberty and happiness of all citizens by removing the undue burden placed on the medical industry by both the insurance industry and overreaching administrators for health networks and pharma conglomerates?

You tell me which one you prefer.

 

[Obscurity]

All of a sudden you lefties care about employers? Give me a break. Bottom line, you want to screw over 70% of the population to further your liberal agenda.

Idiocy. The left-progressive tax policies being proposed by those like Sanders would benefit over 90% of the population.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm curious. Explain to me how Medicare for all is the government taking over healthcare.

Alarmist rightwing rhetoric aside, there’s a kernel of a point in the post you quoted. Namely that single-payer as sometimes conceptualized and pitched is offered up as a sort of anti-union: savings are promised by using monopsony buying power over labor to squeeze or depress wages. Exploring potential unintended consequences of that idea shouldn’t be out of bounds.

 

[sjmay]

Medicare is not run by the government. The PAYMENT SYSTEM which pays doctors is run by the government.

Medicare for all is NOT government run healthcare.

Not a single republican proposal has made sense and not a single republican in congress apparently has a real proposal. So what do we do? Stay paralyzed in an unethical system that profiteers off purely circumstancial coincidence, such as catching the flu, or do we move to a common sense system that ensure the life, liberty and happiness of all citizens by removing the undue burden placed on the medical industry by both the insurance industry and overreaching administrators for health networks and pharma conglomerates?

You tell me which one you prefer.

Difference without a distinction.....if you do Medicare for All....you are turning it into a SINGLE PAYER system, which is GOVERNMENT PAID...if you think they aren't going to stick their hands in and determine where the money goes and how its used....good luck.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

All of a sudden you lefties care about employers? Give me a break. Bottom line, you want to screw over 70% of the population to further your liberal agenda.

You know one day, maybe just one day, you will actually debate something other than a strawman.

Of course I care about employers. One of the reasons why income growth has been so anemic in this country for 19 years now is a lot of what would have been raises are going to health insurance premiums.

 

[cabse5]

70% Of Americans are happy with their employer based health insurance. I can't think for the life of me why the left would like to screw over 70% of the population to further their liberal agenda. Just help the 30% without screwing everyone else.

The first step has been accomplished. Abolishment of the ACA mandate.

Here is my solution: Next is the abolishment of ACA directly followed by the reenactment of employer-based healthcare and the gov't using some form of Medicaid to help those who can't get heath insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

The first step has been accomplished. Abolishment of the ACA mandate.

Here is my solution: Next is the abolishment of ACA directly followed by the reenactment of employer-based healthcare and the gov't using some form of Medicaid to help those who can't get heath insurance.

Reenactment of ESI? The ACA literally has a mandate for large employers to offer coverage. ESI remains overwhelmingly the source of private coverage in the U.S. Meanwhile, “using some form of Medicaid to help those who can’t get health insurance” is a centerpiece of the coverage component of the ACA.

“Your” solution is the ACA.

 

[Obscurity]

Difference without a distinction.....if you do Medicare for All....you are turning it into a SINGLE PAYER system, which is GOVERNMENT PAID...if you think they aren't going to stick their hands in and determine where the money goes and how its used....good luck.

They need to get involved because the rampant abuse and overcharging of people for medical services thanks to conglomerate healthcare networks has become untenable.

Think about it without bias. Stop being so obtuse and thinking the only issue is government.

 

[cabse5]

Reenactment of ESI? The ACA literally has a mandate for large employers to offer coverage. ESI remains overwhelmingly the source of private coverage in the U.S. Meanwhile, “using some form of Medicaid to help those who can’t get health insurance” is a centerpiece of the coverage component of the ACA.

“Your” solution is the ACA.

My solution is: ACA for the 30% who can't get health care insurance. Period. Get rid of the ACA mandate to force everyone to have healthcare insurance. That would eliminate the need for ACA. Make it Medicaid. Some form of gov't insurance like that given for Vets, for example.

 

[Threegoofs]

People need to check out the VA Hospital system if they want a peek at what a single payer government ran hospital system looks like. I worked at the Dallas VA Hospital in ICU for ten years. At the ICU level the Nursing care was OK but the Medical care was largely done by Residents and was average to below average. Also the average American isn't going to want to wait for their care like vets have too. Vets don't like it either.

My experience working in VA systems is exactly the opposite.

The physician care was quite high- resident care with attending supervision is an excellent model, but the ancillary care, especially nursing, was poor to fair.

 

[Moderate Right]

Idiocy. The left-progressive tax policies being proposed by those like Sanders would benefit over 90% of the population.

Like I said, you want to screw 70% of the population to further your liberal agenda. Most people have insurance that is better than Medicare.

 

[Moderate Right]

You know one day, maybe just one day, you will actually debate something other than a strawman.

Of course I care about employers. One of the reasons why income growth has been so anemic in this country for 19 years now is a lot of what would have been raises are going to health insurance premiums.

Your are calling 70% of Americans strawmen. People who are happy with their insurance don't want it taken away.

 

[Moderate Right]

The first step has been accomplished. Abolishment of the ACA mandate.

Here is my solution: Next is the abolishment of ACA directly followed by the reenactment of employer-based healthcare and the gov't using some form of Medicaid to help those who can't get heath insurance.

It's certainly a better idea than Medicare for all.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your are calling 70% of Americans strawmen. People who are happy with their insurance don't want it taken away.

When did I argue that we should do away with employer provided insurance?

 

[Greenbeard]

When did I argue that we should do away with employer provided insurance?

These idiots make the same argument against everyone perceived as "left." I started the goddamn thread and I still get grief about the ins-and-outs of single-payer.

 

[Moderate Right]

When did I argue that we should do away with employer provided insurance?

Great, then you agree with me.

 

[Obscurity]

Like I said, you want to screw 70% of the population to further your liberal agenda. Most people have insurance that is better than Medicare.

Wrong.

Over 90% of the population will benefit from Sanders' policies. I don't know where you get your odious and absurd math, but it isn't from math class. LOL

 

[Moderate Right]

Wrong.

Over 90% of the population will benefit from Sanders' policies. I don't know where you get your odious and absurd math, but it isn't from math class. LOL

I posted a link. As usual, both the left and the right claim that if they shove their policies down everyone's throats, it will benefit "over 90% of the population".

 

[Obscurity]

I posted a link. As usual, both the left and the right claim that if they shove their policies down everyone's throats, it will benefit "over 90% of the population".

What Sanders wants would benefit everyone. Healthcare is the sole reason my wife was unable to stay home and take care of our kids. Healthcare determined the outcome of my kids first few years of life. Healthcare determined where she was employed. HEalthcare offered at my company is expensive, constantly changes, has absurd networking restrictions, and is nowhere near as good as what my wife gets.

Why should my kids suffer because some rich asshole wants another yacht or some ****ing ****bag ceo wants another $10m house?

The republicans have offered NO solutions. None. Not a single thing.

What Sanders proposes helps -all-americans, a majority. No one gives a **** who their insurance company is. Companies deny coverage and cut coverage to save money and give it to shareholders.

It needs to come to an end, and now.

 

[Moderate Right]

What Sanders wants would benefit everyone. Healthcare is the sole reason my wife was unable to stay home and take care of our kids. Healthcare determined the outcome of my kids first few years of life. Healthcare determined where she was employed. HEalthcare offered at my company is expensive, constantly changes, has absurd networking restrictions, and is nowhere near as good as what my wife gets.

Why should my kids suffer because some rich asshole wants another yacht or some ****ing ****bag ceo wants another $10m house?

The republicans have offered NO solutions. None. Not a single thing.

What Sanders proposes helps -all-americans, a majority. No one gives a **** who their insurance company is. Companies deny coverage and cut coverage to save money and give it to shareholders.

It needs to come to an end, and now.

What Sanders wants would NOT benefit everyone. It wouldn't benefit me and it wouldn't benefit a lot of other people. Hell, many in the Democratic party realize that Medicare for all is virtually impossible. That's the trouble with you radicals. You justify in your heads that your policies will benefit everyone so you are going to cram it down everyone's throats like a mother forces their kids to take medicine.

 

[Obscurity]

What Sanders wants would NOT benefit everyone. It wouldn't benefit me and it wouldn't benefit a lot of other people. Hell, many in the Democratic party realize that Medicare for all is virtually impossible. That's the trouble with you radicals. You justify in your heads that your policies will benefit everyone so you are going to cram it down everyone's throats like a mother forces their kids to take medicine.

What a load of steaming, useless, and vapid bull ****.

Single payer is literally the only way to solve this debacle. And you know it. Deep down.

Radicals? Look who's ****ing POTUS.

There's nothing radical about health care coverage for all americans. There is nothing radical about it when you consider our foreign aid, our military bloat, the endless intervention everywhere, etc, etc.

The only thing RADICAL is those who insist we need to keep feeding a broken system, or, change that broken system back to the even more broken system that existed before.

NOTHING is impossible, and you saying so, shows us who you really are.