mr6666

Healthcare in America?

720 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, TalkTalk123 said:
If we had listened to people like Rahm Emanuel (and Amy, Joe, Pete, etc) in the 1930s, we would not have Social Security or unemployment insurance. If we had listened to people like these in the 1960s, we would not have any Medicare (or Medicaid). Time to ignore these bought-and-paid for corporate shills and elect Bernie Sanders so this country can have Medicare For All and no longer be the only developed country on earth without guaranteed health care for its residents.

The President can't implement such a complex system as Medicaid-for-All.  

The office doesn't have the power to do so per the Constitution. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The President can't implement such a complex system as Medicaid-for-All.  

The office doesn't have the power to do so per the Constitution. 

 

Quite right and what Krystal Ball gets wrong is that Social Security and Medicare as enacted are NOTHING like Medicare For All.  In addition, they were paid for by contributions (premiums) from employers and the "insured."  They were also far, far more limited in "benefits" than MFA.  MFA requires no such payments; just higher taxes on everyone.

What Warren and the rest are hiding is that the US tax rates are far lower than for comparable income people in Europe, Canada and the other countries with MFA type health care.  The question is can they guarantee that not having to pay insurance premiums, co-pays, etc. will be less than the increased taxes?  Not to mention all the hoops for accessing health care, prescriptions, etc. 

It would require a doubling of tax rates to fund MFA.

Also, are the American people who have private insurance ready to trade it in for a pig in a poke?

Warren is quickly painting herself into the same corner that Sanders and others are already crowded into.  Presenting MFA as the only way.  The American voters are unlikely to buy into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Social Security Payroll Tax for 2019

The employee's Social Security payroll tax rate for 2019 (January 1 through December 31, 2019) is 6.2% of the first $132,900 of wages, salaries, etc. An employee's 2019 earnings in excess of $132,900 are not subject to the Social Security tax.

Social Security Payroll Tax is One Part of the **** Payroll Tax

The Social Security payroll tax is one of the two components of the **** payroll tax. The other component is the Medicare tax which applies to every dollar of an employee's earnings. In other words, there is no wage limit or cap for the Medicare tax. In fact, there is also a Medicare surtax that applies to high income employees.

An Employer Must Match its Employees' **** Taxes

In addition to the employees' Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, the employer is required to match the amounts that were withheld from the employees' paychecks (other than the Medicare surtax).

Employer's Social Security Payroll Tax for 2019

The employer's Social Security payroll tax rate for 2019 (January 1 through December 31, 2019) is 6.2% of each employee's first $132,900 of wages, salaries, etc. If an employee's wages, salaries, etc. are greater than $132,900, the amount in excess of $132,900 is not subject to the Social Security tax. Hence, the maximum amount of the employer's Social Security tax for each employee in 2019 is $8,239.80 (6.2% X $132,900).

Since employees also have the Social Security payroll tax withheld from their wages, salaries, etc., the employer is in effect matching each employee's Social Security payroll tax. The employer must remit both the amounts withheld from employees' pay and employer's matching to the U.S. government.

Social Security Payroll Tax is One Part of the **** Payroll Tax

In addition to the Social Security payroll tax, there is also a Medicare payroll tax of 1.45% and a Medicare surtax for higher income taxpayers. (The combination of the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax is referred to as ****.) The employer must match each employee's Medicare tax of 1.45% but does not match the Medicare surtax. Information on the Medicare surtax can be found at www.irs.gov.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early Opponents of Social Security

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Early Opponents of Social Security

Alf Landon, the Kansas governor running as the Republican Party’s 1936 presidential candidate, called it a “fraud on the working man” and “a cruel hoax.” The New York Times, in an editorial, said it was “ill-considered” and “very questionable.” Harper Sibley, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned that it would result in “more unemployment in the future, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

Congressman John Taber, a Republican from New York, proclaimed that “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people.” His New York colleague, GOP Congressman Daniel Reed, warned that if it passed “the lash of the dictator will be felt.” The American Medical Association denounced it as a “compulsory socialistic tax.” Silas Strawn, former president of both the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, described it as “economically preposterous and legally indefensible.” It was, he said, part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to “Sovietize the country.”

What was this threat to American prosperity, freedom, and democracy they were all decrying? It was Social Security, which President Roosevelt signed into law on August 14, 1935 — 75 years ago.

https://www.laprogressive.com/early-opponents-of-social-security/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheCid said:

 

Also, are the American people who have private insurance ready to trade it in for a pig in a poke?

 


I personally can attest to this question. My wife has cancer and two days ago we received a bill for over $4,000.00 and we have lots of bills coming. She has good insurance through her work place and I'm appreciative of that because other wise we would be going bankrupt.
I think people don't see the need for MFA because they personally don't face the reality of what millions of Americans face who don't have health care or the insurance just is not designed to cover the need at hand.
If you look at all the changes to Social Security over the years,I personally think MFA could be a new amendment---

Major programs[edit]

The larger and better known programs under the Social Security Administration, SSA, are:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

I personally can attest to this question. My wife has cancer and two days ago we received a bill for over $4,000.00 and we have lots of bills coming. She has good insurance through her work place and I'm appreciative of that because other wise we would be going bankrupt.
I think people don't see the need for MFA because they personally don't face the reality of what millions of Americans face who don't have health care or the insurance just is not designed to cover the need at hand.
If you look at all the changes to Social Security over the years,I personally think MFA could be a new amendment---

Major programs[edit]

The larger and better known programs under the Social Security Administration, SSA, are:

Sorry about your wife's situation.

Your posts have been very descriptive of Social Security and Medicare taxes and so forth, but what is your point?  Do you favor MFA and eliminating private insurance, which requires higher taxes for everyone?

One of the problems with Social Security is that it was created as an old age supplemental pension for workers.  It was not intended to be the sole source of income for retirees nor was it meant for spouses, children and the disabled.  It was meant for people who had worked until age 65 and paid into the program for a certain number of years.  No one could draw before age 65 and if you had not worked and contributed during the previous 10 years or so, you couldn't draw then.

All the new programs and changes have led to the current funding situation problems.

Incidentally, SSI, SCHIP and similar are not related to Social Security as far as funding is concerned.  Their funding comes from income taxes, just like Defense, Homeland Security, State, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 12:19 PM, TheCid said:

 

Your posts have been very descriptive of Social Security and Medicare taxes and so forth, but what is your point?  Do you favor MFA and eliminating private insurance, which requires higher taxes for everyone?

 

Yes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Elizabeth Warren’s Plan Is a Massive Win for the Medicare for All Movement

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all/

Actually the responsible financial experts have already began to point out that it will never work.  It will end up many trillions of dollars short of what is needed - about 40% short.  She has also built in a bribe to unions by creating some flaky procedure whereby their employers get a tax break on taxes IF they promise to pass it on to workers. So union members get MFA AND a pay raise?

Of course all of this supposes some magical restrictions on the cost of health care itself.

It is the same old political ploy that has been around for decades.  It is called Smoke and Mirrors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-medicare-all-health-care-payment-plan/4121147002/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

What a load of crap!  No where does she say where the money is coming from that will actually pay for it.  She just throws out a lot of socialist gibberish.

As for the previous Supreme Court saying it was Constitutional, John Roberts is the one who said the premiums were a tax and in that context Congress could enact the ACA with a "tax" proviso.  The current court probably will reverse that decision if it comes down to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 10:20 PM, TheCid said:

What a load of crap!  No where does she say where the money is coming from that will actually pay for it.  She just throws out a lot of socialist gibberish.

As for the previous Supreme Court saying it was Constitutional, John Roberts is the one who said the premiums were a tax and in that context Congress could enact the ACA with a "tax" proviso.  The current court probably will reverse that decision if it comes down to it.

 


I take it that you think from the time line of 45 second to the end of the video is also socialist gibberish?
 
Do you have the same zeal of disapproval when it comes to,--------------------- The 2019 military budget, approved by an 85-to-10 vote, gives America's armed forces an $82 billion increase from 2017.
 
Also this, ------------------------
Mike Collins
Mike CollinsContributor 
Reinventing America
I write about manufacturing and government policies

Most people think that the big bank bailout was the $700 billion that the treasury department used to save the banks during the financial crash in September of 2008. But this is a long way from the truth because the bailout is still ongoing. The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out.

The problem is that the big Banks have enormous lobbying power to buy off Congress.-----------------------------------------------

 

This is why just now the banks can do this,--

In a week during which the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for only the second time since the Great Recession, the central bank found its hands full with another event with potentially catastrophic implications for the economy.

In short, liquidity in the -- markets – a critical cog in the financial system machine – seized up on Tuesday.

The Fed on Wednesday poured another $75 billion into the market following a $53 billion rescue by the NY Fed on Tuesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

I take it that you think from the time line of 45 second to the end of the video is also socialist gibberish?
 
Do you have the same zeal of disapproval when it comes to,--------------------- The 2019 military budget, approved by an 85-to-10 vote, gives America's armed forces an $82 billion increase from 2017.
 
Also this, ------------------------
Mike CollinsContributor 
Reinventing America
I write about manufacturing and government policies

Most people think that the big bank bailout was the $700 billion that the treasury department used to save the banks during the financial crash in September of 2008. But this is a long way from the truth because the bailout is still ongoing. The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out.

The problem is that the big Banks have enormous lobbying power to buy off Congress.-----------------------------------------------

 

This is why just now the banks can do this,--

In a week during which the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for only the second time since the Great Recession, the central bank found its hands full with another event with potentially catastrophic implications for the economy.

In short, liquidity in the -- markets – a critical cog in the financial system machine – seized up on Tuesday.

The Fed on Wednesday poured another $75 billion into the market following a $53 billion rescue by the NY Fed on Tuesday.

1.  The whole thing is socialist gibberish.  Regardless, my main point is that she STILL has not said how she will pay for it, other than to cut the military budget.  If so, how much and where and when?  Specifics please.

2. "The 2019 military budget, approved by an 85-to-10 vote"  That shows  huge support by the US Senate with a vast majority of Democrats voting for it.  The American public supports the military.  However, if you were paying attention you would remember that I too believe it is way over funded.  But cutting the military budget is not the way to fund MFA - and the American people do NOT want to do that.

3.  As for the "bank bailout,' assuming this person's statistics are valid, two wrongs don't make a right.

4.  The issue is and always has been the majority of Americans do NOT want Medicare For All.  How many times do y'all have to be told that.  They especially do not want the Sanders/Warren/AOC version that will bankrupt the nation and create huge tax increases for the middle class.  While creating havoc with the health care system at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheCid said:

4.  The issue is and always has been the majority of Americans do NOT want Medicare For All.  

That's simply not true. The polling for approval of Medicare-for-All/single-payer healthcare has yet to drop below 51%. However, it is becoming less popular, with the latest approval at 51%, down from a high of 59% in March of '18. Support among Democrats continues to hover in the 70-to-80% range, and independents at 60-to-70%. However, support among Republicans has dipped from a high of 35% to a current 15%. That drop among conservatives is largely responsible for the dip in the overall approval rating.  

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

That's simply not true. The polling for approval of Medicare-for-All/single-payer healthcare has yet to drop below 51%. However, it is becoming less popular, with the latest approval at 51%, down from a high of 59% in March of '18. Support among Democrats continues to hover in the 70-to-80% range, and independents at 60-to-70%. However, support among Republicans has dipped from a high of 35% to a current 15%. That drop among conservatives is largely responsible for the dip in the overall approval rating.  

Because of the Billions in profits and the many ways to influence peoples thinking, its no wonder that the support for MFA is still as high as it is. Here is just a micro look at who is at work as the opposition to MFA.

Tenet Healthcare, the nation’s third-largest investor-owned operator of hospitals, has donated nearly $630,000 to the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, or PAHCF, a dark-money organization created last year to erode public support for Medicare for All, a government-run plan that would provide health care for all Americans.

 

In March, Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic governor and U.S. senator from Nebraska who now serves on Tenet’s board of directors, wrote an op-ed in the Omaha World-Herald describing Medicare for All as a “delusion” and casting doubt on the idea “that Americans long for a president who will ask us to pay more for the pleasure of increasing the role of the federal government in our lives.” The piece did not mention Kerrey’s seat on Tenet’s board
 

Tenet CEO Ron Rittenmeyer, chair of the Federation of American Hospitals, recently said that a Medicare for All system would be too expensive and that Medicare reimbursement rates would be too low for hospitals.

Earlier this year, the federation’s CEO, Chip Kahn, publicly took credit for the idea of forming PAHCF, according to Modern Healthcare. Kahn is best known for creating the health insurance industry’s “Harry and Louise” advertising campaign against the Clinton administration’s health care reform plan in the ’90s, and he was reportedly involved in negotiating a backroom deal with the Obama White House to remove a public health insurance option from the Affordable Care Act. The federation paid Kahn almost $2.6 million last year.

A July filing by PAHCF in Washington, D.C., lists the federation’s former senior vice president, Jeff Cohen, as a PAHCF board member. The filing doesn’t name any additional members. A PAHCF spokesperson said that Cohen is no longer part of their board.

Cohen recently left the federation to become the top lobbyist at HCA Healthcare, another member of both the federation and the PAHCF campaign against Medicare for All. HCA, which dealt with fraud accusations while under the stewardship of then-chief executive Rick Scott (who is now a U.S. senator), owns 185 hospitals.

http://www.tnca.org/2019/10/18/for-profit-hospitals-leading-opposition-to-medicare-for-all/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

Because of the Billions in profits and the many ways to influence peoples thinking, its no wonder that the support for MFA is still as high as it is. Here is just a micro look at who is at work as the opposition to MFA.

Yeah, here in Florida we've been seeing anti-Medicare-for-All (M4A) commercials for the past several months, with hysterically overblown horror stories of "what will happen" if it ever passes. And there's nothing even on any proposed ballot yet. I can't recall ever seeing a policy commercial before for something that wasn't already primed to be on a ballot. So I know that the healthcare syndicates are sweating bullets if they're buying ads this early. Combined with the right-wing media attack machine and the social media campaigns, the anti-M4A push is in full swing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

That's simply not true. The polling for approval of Medicare-for-All/single-payer healthcare has yet to drop below 51%. However, it is becoming less popular, with the latest approval at 51%, down from a high of 59% in March of '18. Support among Democrats continues to hover in the 70-to-80% range, and independents at 60-to-70%. However, support among Republicans has dipped from a high of 35% to a current 15%. That drop among conservatives is largely responsible for the dip in the overall approval rating.  

It simply is true when you factor in all the details that are left out in simple yes/no questions.  When you tell people they will have to give up their private insurance, as well as all the other restrictions that will be placed on MFA services.  Then add in that it WILL require a tax increase on the middle classes, business and more.  When that information is added, it drops below 51%.

The problem is and will be that the supporters have yet to really come out with a detailed, realistic, verifiable "plan" that shows all the coverage specifics and the costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

Because of the Billions in profits and the many ways to influence peoples thinking, its no wonder that the support for MFA is still as high as it is. Here is just a micro look at who is at work as the opposition to MFA.

Tenet Healthcare, the nation’s third-largest investor-owned operator of hospitals, has donated nearly $630,000 to the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, or PAHCF, a dark-money organization created last year to erode public support for Medicare for All, a government-run plan that would provide health care for all Americans.

 

In March, Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic governor and U.S. senator from Nebraska who now serves on Tenet’s board of directors, wrote an op-ed in the Omaha World-Herald describing Medicare for All as a “delusion” and casting doubt on the idea “that Americans long for a president who will ask us to pay more for the pleasure of increasing the role of the federal government in our lives.” The piece did not mention Kerrey’s seat on Tenet’s board
 

Tenet CEO Ron Rittenmeyer, chair of the Federation of American Hospitals, recently said that a Medicare for All system would be too expensive and that Medicare reimbursement rates would be too low for hospitals.

Earlier this year, the federation’s CEO, Chip Kahn, publicly took credit for the idea of forming PAHCF, according to Modern Healthcare. Kahn is best known for creating the health insurance industry’s “Harry and Louise” advertising campaign against the Clinton administration’s health care reform plan in the ’90s, and he was reportedly involved in negotiating a backroom deal with the Obama White House to remove a public health insurance option from the Affordable Care Act. The federation paid Kahn almost $2.6 million last year.

A July filing by PAHCF in Washington, D.C., lists the federation’s former senior vice president, Jeff Cohen, as a PAHCF board member. The filing doesn’t name any additional members. A PAHCF spokesperson said that Cohen is no longer part of their board.

Cohen recently left the federation to become the top lobbyist at HCA Healthcare, another member of both the federation and the PAHCF campaign against Medicare for All. HCA, which dealt with fraud accusations while under the stewardship of then-chief executive Rick Scott (who is now a U.S. senator), owns 185 hospitals.

http://www.tnca.org/2019/10/18/for-profit-hospitals-leading-opposition-to-medicare-for-all/

Nothing wrong with any of this.  It is the way America works, just as there are lobby groups advocating MFA.  The issue is that the hospital and other organizations are raising questions that need to be answered.  If all the $millions behind Sanders, Warren, AOC, MFA, et. al. can't answer them and their supporters can't answer them, why should we believe them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two interesting columns re: Warren and Sanders and Medicare For All.  First is by Catherine Rampell and basically states that Warren tried to use Sanders plan as a basis for hers - and failed.  Her plan requires very generous assumptions, which are faulty.  Rampell does believe that Warren's plan could arrive at universal coverage, BUT without a single payer (government) system.  But it would also have income based requirements, cost sharing and minimum benefits.

https://www.winonadailynews.com/catherine-rampell-elizabeth-warren-tried-to-do-bernie-sanders-homework/article_cbd875d9-643c-502e-b2e1-8011d8485c59.html

Michael Gerson believes that Warren's MFA plan would help reelect Trump.  Warren is six points behind Trump in Michigan, even with him in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and four points behind in Florida.  Trump and the GOPers will exploit the weak points in her MFA plan and in these swing states will most likely tilt the election to Trump.

She proposes a massive increase in government involvement in people's lives at a time when people trust government less.  She will replace ACA (Obamacare) just as it is beginning to show signs that it could work with improvents.  Her estimates on both costs and revenues for MFA and potential budget cuts are overly optimistic.

The 2018 (and now 2019) elections have shown that Trump and the GOPers are losing some voters, but these same voters will not be attracted to the Dem party in 2020 if Warren (or whoever) proposes socialism, disruption and radicalism to American health care system.

https://democratherald.com/michael-gerson-warren-s-health-care-plan-would-help-reelect/article_99df8a59-3e99-5e85-96ab-452ecb650faa.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us