• 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!

Ocasio-Cortez calls question about how to pay for Medicare for all ‘puzzling’

Sabre said:
You are paying the same for them to sit in their barracks on base, so, would you rather they wait until the caravan is 800 feet away before sending for them or just let then stay on base regardless?
Click to expand...
Why send them? What role can they have legally?
 
prometeus said:
It looks like even simple arithmetic is over your head. We are currently spending 3.2 trillion on healthcare. No here it is in large numbers.
3.2 - 3.0 = 0.2
the net result of 0.2 trillion is savings, that means that it is that much less to have UHC than we are now spending.
Click to expand...

And the question you folks keep avoiding is: much less for whom? See post #50.
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve laid out the math already. The UHC proposal on the table would cost $3 trillion annually. And you have to pay for that the way every other nation with UHC pays for it - huge tax rates. France, for example, levies a 21% healthcare tax on top of regular income taxes. But even these tax rates aren’t enough because all of them have resorted to paying for it through a combination of dipping into general revenue and deficit spending. And the bottom line is that those taxes would exceed the healthcare costs incurred by the majority of people today.
Click to expand...

In every single instance UHC has ever been implemented, the per-capita costs are substantially lower than in the US. Claiming the majority of people would spend more is absurd.
 
Deuce said:
In every single instance UHC has ever been implemented, the per-capita costs are substantially lower than in the US. Claiming the majority of people would spend more is absurd.
Click to expand...

Two things.

1) Those systems include a tome of direct price regulation and nationalization of healthcare providers. Neither of which have even been proposed here. The only thing being proposed is Federal single payer with zero in the way of addressing the costs of what is being covered. So you’re comparing apples to giraffes.

2) You seem to be operating under the premise that everyone contributes roughly the same amount to the expense today and that simply isn’t true. I illustrated this point in post #50.
 
Napoleon said:
Two things.

1) Those systems include a tome of direct price regulation and nationalization of healthcare providers. Neither of which have even been proposed here. The only thing being proposed is Federal single payer with zero in the way of addressing the costs of what is being covered. So you’re comparing apples to giraffes.
Click to expand...
You're speaking very broadly about a wide range of systems, naturally you're getting most of it wrong.


2) You seem to be operating under the premise that everyone contributes roughly the same amount today and that simply isn’t true. I illustrated this point in post #50.
Click to expand...

No, that's just your stupid interpretation of what I wrote.
 
Deuce said:
You're speaking very broadly about a wide range of systems, naturally you're getting most of it wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it’s just the truth and I’ll repeat what I said in post #50.

Current system: I pay $10,000 in healthcare costs annually. You’re an invalid and pay $25,000 in healthcare costs annually to keep yourself alive.

UHC: Both of us pay $15,000 in payroll taxes annually for universal healthcare.

UHC Supporters: UHC is cheaper! *primal scream*

You think it’s worth celebrating because combined costs are lower under UHC. I say codswallop. Who cares unless you’re the invalid?
 
Napoleon said:
No, it’s just the truth and I’ll repeat what I said in post #50.

Current system: I pay $10,000 in healthcare costs annually. You’re an invalid and pay $25,000 in healthcare costs annually to keep yourself alive.

UHC: Both of us pay $15,000 in payroll taxes annually for universal healthcare.

UHC Supporters: UHC is cheaper! *primal scream*

You think it’s worth celebrating because combined costs are lower under UHC. I say codswallop. Who cares unless you’re the invalid?
Click to expand...

Do you buy health insurance? Because that's literally the same thing. Because nobody gets to choose whether or not to get sick.
 
Renae said:
However, as noted in the article, even doubling income and corporate taxes wouldn't "just pay for it".

This is your democrat party, when you vote today, you vote Blue, this is who you're voting for, "politicians" without a ****ing clue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...bout-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all-puzzling
Click to expand...

This what happens when they elect someone into congress yesterday who was only about five years old when the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 occurred.
 
ObamacareFail said:
This what happens when they elect someone into congress yesterday who was only about five years old when the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 occurred.
Click to expand...

UHC is cheaper than what we have now, why do you think it's hard to pay for
 
Deuce said:
Do you buy health insurance? Because that's literally the same thing. Because nobody gets to choose whether or not to get sick.
Click to expand...


Preventable disease is all about choices and, in the current system, I get to choose where not or not to shoulder the burden of their deductibles and out of pocket costs.
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
However, as noted in the article, even doubling income and corporate taxes wouldn't "just pay for it".

This is your democrat party, when you vote today, you vote Blue, this is who you're voting for, "politicians" without a ****ing clue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...bout-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all-puzzling
Click to expand...

What’s puzzling is the failure of people like the OP to comprehend that health care in the U.S. is an insanely expensive two industry system, a medical establishment coupled with a gleaming, high powered, profit driven insurance industry.
 
prometeus said:
Why send them? What role can they have legally?
Click to expand...

Why send them? well for now at least we are a nation that has a boarder and believe it or not, all nations have them for good reason.

The troops will provide support for border missions, install concrete barriers and will be involved in repairing and maintaining vehicles. The troops include military police, combat engineers and helicopter companies equipped with advanced technology to help detect people at night. Thus freeing the border patrol from these duties to take care of more pressing duties.
 
ajn678 said:
I didn't vote for Trump, so stop calling me "you guys". You are entirely clueless about what I believe. You shouldn't be excusing away ignorance based on what the other party did.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly like Cortez, but unlike Trump, I don't think she'll win the presidency, or even the nomination.
 
imagep said:
How many years did you have to wait for that consultation, multiple screenings, surgery and post-consultation?
Click to expand...

The entire process happened within a few weeks as it wasn't time critical. An emergency would've been handled quicker. We don't wait years for Healthcare like Americans do.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope. it has been substantiated multiple times.

but go ahead.. do some research and show me all the government single payer insurances.. that pay for hospital care.. pharmaceuticals, outpatient therapies, inpatient therapies, home health, skilled rehabilitation units for 100 days, let you choose any doctor.. and any specialist without referrals.. or authorizations.. and so on.

Canada is already out... its single payer government insurance doesn;t pay for home health, outpatient therapy , pharmaceuticals and so forth.

France is out.. because it will pay for say an abdominal surgery but not pay for the anaesthetic..

Germany is out.. because it has all sorts of plans that people have that they pay for and add on from compulsory insurance to private insurance plans and everything in between.

But you are welcome to do some research and get back to the group.


.
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha "Germany is out because they have plans they pay for" news flash, hot shot all UHC plans get paid for by the people using them, and Europe does it at a fraction of the cost that the US does and consistently ranks higher in quality of care. Educate yourself and do some research before you talk to me again.

Also, is this you trying to call for Medicare for All?
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve laid out the math already. The UHC proposal on the table would cost $3 trillion annually. And you have to pay for that the way every other nation with UHC pays for it - huge tax rates. France, for example, levies a 21% healthcare tax on top of regular income taxes. But even these tax rates aren’t enough because all of them have resorted to paying for it through a combination of dipping into general revenue and deficit spending. And the bottom line is that those taxes would exceed the healthcare costs incurred by the majority of people today.
Click to expand...

Call it a tax if you like. Citizens of the US, and Corporations, pay out huge sums in health care premiums every year. It's a matter of channeling these same family and corporate expenses into Medicare for all, versus health care premiums. The big change - it eliminates the middle man (Insurance Companies), and that will save Billions in health care costs for the country.

I don't think Medicare-for-all should be financed by the tax system. I think it should be handled either as part of Medicare, or a similar program to Medicare. The aforementioned savings would even help to make Medicare more viable.
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve laid out the math already. The UHC proposal on the table would cost $3 trillion annually. And you have to pay for that the way every other nation with UHC pays for it - huge tax rates. France, for example, levies a 21% healthcare tax on top of regular income taxes. But even these tax rates aren’t enough because all of them have resorted to paying for it through a combination of dipping into general revenue and deficit spending. And the bottom line is that those taxes would exceed the healthcare costs incurred by the majority of people today.
Click to expand...

The government, all levels combined, back in 2008 was already spending 1.2 trillion on healthcare, I'm sure it's a lot more today with the expansion of medicaid, more people on medicare and the Obamacare subsidies. You have to subtract that from the cost because we would no longer have a need for existing government health care costs. I seriously doubt it would cost $3 trillion if we had medicare for all, but assuming that number is correct, we are only talking about at the very most $1.5 trillion dollars additional government spending.

The federal government collected $3.42 trillion in tax revenues last fiscal year, so an across the board tax increase of about 40% would cover the cost. This tax increase would be offset by the current $1.5 trillion savings in private sector healthcare spending being eliminated. Insurance for my family is over $20k per year, plus I still have out of pocket expenses, so medicare for all would represent a very nice savings for my family even if I had to pay more in taxes.

We (the entire USA) already pay for healthcare, we aren't talking about additional healthcare spending, just shifting the spending and saving billions in the profits and overhead of health insurance companies.
 
initially, any UHC plan here in america is probably going to cost a great deal more than it does now. the point of single payer is so we have one point of bargaining for services/pharmaceuticals that can bring th ecost down with bargaining power, right? its going to take time to work that through though, I'm sure.

eventually however, it should cost less... especially if we can get big pharma to stop gouging our own country for profits... then aqain , this could hurt R&D , so who knows.

also , a lot of ins companies would probably be SOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom