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

[jaeger19]

Every other UHC country on earth, literally dozens of countries, manage to have a healthcare system where every man, woman and child in the country has full, high quality coverage at less than HALF THE COST per capita of what we pay. Stop pretending that UHC costs more, we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world yet are nowhere near the top in healthcare outcomes or life expectancy and are near dead last among first world countries for percentage covered. Your distraction is rejected.

Except there is a reality that pretty much none of those government healthcare insurances are as comprehensive, and as good as our medicare.

 

[year2late]

Well, let’s get to the core of that though. More people die in this country because of preventable disease rather than mere “treatable” disease persay. UHC isn’t a solution for people who don’t take care of their bodies. That’s the real issue here.

I will emphatically agree that it is a part of the problem is how people treat their bodies. Michelle Obama had it right. Start with better nutrition and more activity from an early age! But she was ridiculed by the right for her efforts.


Now, how does that help the person with undiagnosed hypertension that is first seen in an ER because what would become irreversible kidney failure which would place him quickly in the public dole draining the system and taxpayers of multimiillions over the course of his life? I good relationship with a consistent primary care provider with screening tests would help that a lot.

 

[Threegoofs]

I know a communist born out of ignorance when I see one.

You can’t even understand her argument, dude.

 

[Napoleon]

1.5t already taken care of, therefore 30% medicare tax not required. Do you agree?

Summarily declaring it doesn’t make it so. I showed you my math so you show me yours. Where are the details?

 

[Napoleon]

You can’t even understand her argument, dude.

She doesn’t have one. Her supporters are taking what she said and trying to craft one for her to justify the ineptitude of her response.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Except there is a reality that pretty much none of those government healthcare insurances are as comprehensive, and as good as our medicare.

Total unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[Deuce]

Summarily declaring it doesn’t make it so. I showed you my math so you show me yours. Where are the details?

Your math was based on the notion that we only have $290b in federal healthcare revenue to start with, which is false.

American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

 

[Media_Truth]

I know a communist born out of ignorance when I see one.

Resorting to name-calling is a sign that you've lost the argument.

 

[Napoleon]

Your math was based on the notion that we only have $290b in federal healthcare revenue to start with, which is false.

American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

I’ll have to refer you again to the fact that I asked how to raise revenue not how to spend and I point you to the final section of your link which points out that even current expenditures are financially untenable. I didn’t ask how to create a deficit ballooning morass like the NHS. I asked how you intend to raise $3 trillion. The pages and pages we’ve gone without you providing a detailed answer illustrate the point I’ve been making all along.

 

[Deuce]

I’ll have to refer you again to the fact that I asked how to raise revenue not how to spend and I point you to the final section of your link which points out that even current expenditures are financially untenable. I didn’t ask how to create a deficit ballooning morass like the NHS. I asked how you intend to raise $3 trillion. The pages and pages we’ve gone without you providing a detailed answer illustrate the point I’ve been making all along.

Jesus. Let me spell it out a different way:

Step 1 to get your 3 trillion: divert all the current taxpayer funds spent on healthcare into this new pool. 1.5 trillion of the 3 desired is taken care of so far and I haven't raised taxes one cent. Do you concur?

 

[imagep]

‘People will just pay it’ isnt an answer to the question. What people? How? It doesn’t surprise me that Ocasio-Cortez can’t answer that question since she struggles with even basic economics. But people like Sanders know the real answer - you’d have to do something like raise the Medicare tax to 30%. Problem is they’ll never say that because they’re banking on support from people who believe it will always be someone else footing the bill.

Congress authorizes the spending, the treasury sends out checks or makes electronic deposits. That's how all government spending works. How it is paid is pretty straight forward.

Now how we do this without adding to the deficit is another story, it is doable, but we will need to make a variety of changes to our fiscal system to do so. Of course we don't worry about the details when we pass any federal budget or when we fund the military, so I don't know that it's particularly an issue.

The government needs to budget (estimate) what it needs to spend to do whatever it needs to do, then we base the tax system on the budget needs.

Anyhow, "we" (the United States) already pay for healthcare, all we are really talking about is paying for it different way.

 

[imagep]

The amount of deflection around this is just a manifestation of dishonesty. Other nations do have UHC and they pay for it with huge tax rates for everyone. That is also what will be required here so why are it’s supporters so afraid of and loathe to disclosing that? And here’s the other thing - the 30% Medicare tax that would be required to pay for it IS more expensive for many individuals than the current system. You can’t deflect to overall expense when it’s paid by the individual and 30% of my income is far more than I pay now.

It wouldn't take anything like a 30% medicare tax because healthcare isn't 30% of the GDP. But even if it was, we ALREADY pay for healthcare, and the government (all levels combined) ALREADY pay for more than half of the healthcare spending in the US. It's really not much of a stretch to have healthcare for all, we just shift taxation from local and state governments to the federal government, and we remove the burden of healthcare costs from employers and individuals in exchange for a little higher tax rate.

I could care less who or how I pay for healthcare, I just want to be confident that it is available when I need it. Right now I'm not confident.

 

[imagep]

You forgot to add in the up to two year wait, suffering and the cost that has, but hey your "medical" care is "free".

That's a choice that we the people make. If we take the proper steps, such as insuring that we have ample health care providers, then there is no need for a wait. UHC can be whatever we decide it should be.

 

[Napoleon]

Jesus. Let me spell it out a different way:

Step 1 to get your 3 trillion: divert all the current taxpayer funds spent on healthcare into this new pool. 1.5 trillion of the 3 desired is taken care of so far and I haven't raised taxes one cent. Do you concur?

I do not because I’m not looking to create a system that collapses under the weight of its own costs while people pretend it’s affordable by paying for it with deficit spending. So all you get to deduct are the revenues from the current Medicare tax because everything else is funny money.

 

[imagep]

Healthcare that most people can't afford is not good healthcare. You're excusing our failures and looking back to a time you never lived in with rose colored goggles. Perhaps if you actually experienced something else in your life you might know the difference. I've lived in Germany for nearly a decade now, and while my family in friends in the states are literally dying or going bankrupt because they can't afford the healthcare they need, every person I know in Germany has full coverage at a fraction of the cost and just waves their card when they need anything.

I just went through a consultation, multiple screenings, surgery and post-consultation without paying a dime, and my monthly rate is about 320 euros and covers all of my dependents including dental. Why are you so reluctant to just admit that our healthcare isn't the best and there's a ton we can do to improve it?



If California did that it would be like the ****ing 30th example. How many examples do you need? Can you provide ONE example of a fully free market healthcare system that isn't awful? Somalia must be nice right?

How many years did you have to wait for that consultation, multiple screenings, surgery and post-consultation?

 

[imagep]

Democrats are playing with fire, they may be the only ones wanting to address the problem nationally.... but they are addressing it the worst way possible when we already have a huge debt crisis.

I say, let the states make their own healthcare systems.... Why not have a state have universal healthcare.... Let California be the first to be the example! I don't see why this is not a better solution, instead of forcing the entire American public to have something they may not want.

Having states manage their own healthcare systems is the best of all worlds. And they can be much more specialized to the particular state's needs.

States don't issue US dollars. The federal government does. States also wouldn't want to compete to see which state can attract the most sick people.

 

[imagep]

We have the most expensive highways and bridges also and we can't afford to fix them.

But of course your healthcare pipe dream will come in on budget....right? :roll:

Maybe there shouldn't be a budget for healthcare. Do you set a budget for how much you spend saving the life of one of your children?

 

[imagep]

How is Single Payer paid for?
- same healthcare costs that companies + employees already incur today in the course of employment, redirected toward single payer
- savings from reductions in admin costs and admin staff reductions (25% according to this physician's organization)
- reduction in income made by healthcare professionals (say to Canadian level? which today is ~$260k/year average)
- removing both costs and profits of private insurance industry (a single government-run system would be added - ideally, some sort of improvement on what medicare does today already)
- large reduction in drug costs / reimbursements to pharma
- (perhaps realigning payments to avoid giving incentives for over-treatments? and improving preventative care)
- ONLY IF ABOVE IS NOT ENOUGH, increase in federal tax rates

sounds like a solid plan to me.

Government, all levels combined already pay for more than half of the US healthcare bill. If we cut the cost of healthcare by 20% by eliminating private insurance companies and the cost that healthcare providers have to pay to deal with dozens of different insurance companies and thousands of different policies, then it's really not much more money for government to pay for all of it.

 

[Napoleon]

It wouldn't take anything like a 30% medicare tax because healthcare isn't 30% of the GDP. But even if it was, we ALREADY pay for healthcare, and the government (all levels combined) ALREADY pay for more than half of the healthcare spending in the US. It's really not much of a stretch to have healthcare for all, we just shift taxation from local and state governments to the federal government, and we remove the burden of healthcare costs from employers and individuals in exchange for a little higher tax rate.

I could care less who or how I pay for healthcare, I just want to be confident that it is available when I need it. Right now I'm not confident.

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.

 

[Deuce]

I do not because I’m not looking to create a system that collapses under the weight of its own costs while people pretend it’s affordable by paying for it with deficit spending. So all you get to deduct are the revenues from the current Medicare tax because everything else is funny money.

You don't get to decide what I get to deduct. **** off with that nonsense.

 

[Sabre]

How are we paying for the thousands of troops being sent to the border to protect us against the caravan that 800 miles away????

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?

 

[jaeger19]

Total unsubstantiated nonsense.

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.


.

 

[Deuce]

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?

Deployment cost is not zero.

 

[prometeus]

I’ve laid out the math already. The UHC proposal on the table would cost $3 trillion annually.

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.

 

[jaeger19]

It wouldn't take anything like a 30% medicare tax because healthcare isn't 30% of the GDP. But even if it was, we ALREADY pay for healthcare, and the government (all levels combined) ALREADY pay for more than half of the healthcare spending in the US. It's really not much of a stretch to have healthcare for all, we just shift taxation from local and state governments to the federal government, and we remove the burden of healthcare costs from employers and individuals in exchange for a little higher tax rate.

I could care less who or how I pay for healthcare, I just want to be confident that it is available when I need it. Right now I'm not confident.

What do you mean shift taxation from local and state government to the federal government?

There are millions of plans that are private plans funded by individuals and employers.. .... that's not a shift from local and state governments.

And you are removing the burden of healthcare costs.. if you increase the tax rate.. in all likely hood you would be increasing the burden for employers and individuals. The more and employee makes.. the more the taxes have to be paid. anytime I give a raise.. it would then raise my tax burden...

now if I give a raise.. and increase salaries.. my healthcare insurance cost does not go up.