Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TheCid said:

First, the amount paid through payroll tax would have to be less than current employee and employer payments.  Actually I have not seen where MFA is supposed to be paid by employee and employer.  Maybe I missed it.  Assuming both pay in future, the amount the government requires to fully fund MFA is probably far, far, far more than current employee and employer payments combined.  As you alluded to about non-covered now. Remember, Bernie said MFA is no co-pay, no cost sharing at all, no exclusions, etc.

That still leaves the 800 lb. gorilla - everybody else, which is the vast majority of people in US.  As you noted.  There is no definitive, verifiable plan for how to actually solve that.  Remember, one problem with ACA is that the funding targets were never realized.

There may be studies showing that MFA will have lower costs than current health care system due to elimination of profits.  However, I am not so sure about that.  In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and other federal "insurance" programs generally contract out for administration, so the profit motive is still there to a great extent.

Federal insurance also has it's "gotchas" that cost people lots of money.  One example is that if you go to something such as physical therapy over a period of weeks or longer, it may be months before Medicare informs you that it wasn't covered.  Private insurance companies would generally react far quicker than that.

"Medicare-For-All doesn't make finding funds for those that don't earn income (or enough of one) a worst problem for the overall US healthcare system."  I'm a little confused by this comment, but seems to me that is the primary issue.  It does make finding funding a problem that has to be resolved.  If not, why even have this discussion? 

I believe we are in agreement;  As for my statement about 'a worst problem';  I guess I should have said doesn't address that problem.   AND as both of us understand THAT is the major problem.  THAT is the 800 lb. gorilla:  so in this regard any major changes to the overall US healthcare system and how it is funded needs to address this 'gorilla',  or it is a NO go for me.

Therefore I can see where my post would be confusing;  I don't support MFA 'plans' put out so far by Dems since, as you noted, they are not address that gorilla.   Of course the GOP has had no ideas to address the gorilla,  and generally no ideas at all for any type of reform (just more hot air,  especially by Trump which even Mitch understood).

  

  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bernie Sanders and the Science of Smears

The media’s focus on personality is designed to shift attention away from dangerous ideas

"......The practice of painting dissident challenges as selfish, hypocritical acts — as opposed to the selfless altruism of corporate-funded candidates — has been going on forever. Long before Sanders was framed as a thin-skinned, cranky narcissist who’s “all about himself,” Dennis Kucinich went through the same thing

 

Kucinich was/is living proof of the Bierce aphorism. When he announced his run for president in October of 2003, the Ohio congressman “stood up against corporate interests,” promised to revoke NAFTA, endorsed decriminalization of marijuana, called for universal health care and trumpeted “amnesty and legalization for illegal immigrants.”

Back when Sanders didn’t seem like a threat to win anything, he got much of the same. He was dismissed as a geek and a wallflower who’d be defined by whether he chose to be a help or a hindrance to the real candidate, Clinton.

The New Yorker’s John Cassidy in early 2015 mock-welcomed Bernie to the race, insisting the entrance of the “loner” would be a “plus” for the Clinton campaign, since he would “occupy the space to the left of Clinton, thus denying it to more plausible candidates, such as Martin O’Malley.”.....

 

It wasn’t until Sanders started piling up delegates that he began to take on the villainous characteristics for which he is now infamous. After he won primaries in 2016, suddenly reporters ripped him as a divisive narcissist with three houses who was the ideological mirror of Donald Trump, boasting racist, sexist and violent followers.

This was all part of the age-old technique of focusing on the person instead of the ideas or the movement behind them....

 

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii have also been pre-emptively dipped in the ick this cycle, cast as crippled politicians whose mere presence in the race will “undermine” Democrats in the end.

 

Additionally, and I could see it coming even a year ago, politicians benefiting from domestic discontent with the status quo are being denounced as Kremlin favorites as well as selfish agents of division.......

 

...Those voters aren’t selfish, or hypocrites, or Kremlin favorites, and they’re not going anywhere. What a lot of DC-based reporters and analysts don’t grasp is that if you remove Bernie Sanders from the scene, there will still be millions of people out there mad about income inequality. Remove Gabbard, and discontent about the human and financial costs of our military commitments will still be rampant. Removing Warren won’t cancel out anger about Wall Street corruption.

Covering personalities instead of political movements only delays things for a while. Sooner or later, the conservatism of tomorrow arrives. You can only delay the inevitable for so long....

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bernie-sanders-science-smears-823138/

Link to post
Share on other sites

POLITICOVerified account @politico 2h2 hours ago

 
 

When asked how he would fund "Medicare for All,"

Sanders didn't shy away from the fact that many Americans would pay more in taxes.

But he insisted the “overwhelming majority” would end up spending less overall.

"...because they would not pay for deductibles or other out-of-pocket costs. He also downplayed concerns that people would be kicked off their insurance, arguing that millions already lose their health insurance when they get fired from or quit their jobs.

His health care plan, he said, "gives you freedom of choice."......

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/bernie-sanders-millionaire-no-apology-1277009

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

POLITICOVerified account @politico 2h2 hours ago

 
 

When asked how he would fund "Medicare for All,"

Sanders didn't shy away from the fact that many Americans would pay more in taxes.

But he insisted the “overwhelming majority” would end up spending less overall.

"...because they would not pay for deductibles or other out-of-pocket costs. He also downplayed concerns that people would be kicked off their insurance, arguing that millions already lose their health insurance when they get fired from or quit their jobs.

His health care plan, he said, "gives you freedom of choice."......

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/bernie-sanders-millionaire-no-apology-1277009

I know that Sanders is trying to keep things simple here but what he says make no sense.    If one has to pay more in Medicare Taxes,  why would one ALSO pay premiums to a for-profit insurance carrier for health insurance coverage?     

Of course maybe the amount of the MFA tax \ deduction is based on if one is using the MFA insurance plan or a private plan,  but it would be difficult to determine what a fair amount would be.

In addition there is still that 800 pound gorilla;  where does the money come from to cover those NOT retired that are NOT working or NOT earning enough to pay any MFA tax \ deduction.

  

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


It's to bad the military doesn't have a 800 pound gorilla.

One could say the military is another 800 pound gorilla;  with the misguided GOP tax plan, and them wanting to increase military spending,   the debt and deficit is getting way out of control.   

In this way the GOP is a fraud;  when there is a Dem President the deficit is THE major economic issues, but when the President is member of the GOP,,,,, the deficit is no problem,   spending for the military increases (to payback those that helped them get elected),  taxes are cut and spending for more useful items decreases.

Note: I'm for lower Fed taxes but that means LESS spending and especially military spending. 

 

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

I know that Sanders is trying to keep things simple here but what he says make no sense.    If one has to pay more in Medicare Taxes,  why would one ALSO pay premiums to a for-profit insurance carrier for health insurance coverage?     

Of course maybe the amount of the MFA tax \ deduction is based on if one is using the MFA insurance plan or a private plan,  but it would be difficult to determine what a fair amount would be.

In addition there is still that 800 pound gorilla;  where does the money come from to cover those NOT retired that are NOT working or NOT earning enough to pay any MFA tax \ deduction.

  

ACA as it was, is a big reason that Trump got into office and repeal remains popular. Whoever decided that Obamacare should get rate hikes on Nov. 1 should never work in government again. Even if Bernie came up with a practical solution to implement his idea (which he hasn't and even tried to avoid answering at the town hall) it would still turn off many voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

ACA as it was, is a big reason that Trump got into office and repeal remains popular. Whoever decided that Obamacare should get rate hikes on Nov. 1 should never work in government again. Even if Bernie came up with a practical solution to implement his idea (which he hasn't and even tried to avoid answering at the town hall) it would still turn off many voters.

Any and all proposals are going to 'turn off many voters' since any and all plans will hurt some (e.g. cost more, provide less services),  while benefiting others (cost less,  provide more services).

So from a political POV any ideas are dangerous which is why McConnell and most members of the GOP wish to avoid the topic all together (other then getting rid of the ACA, without any replacement expect incremental proposals (like not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions),  that the vast majority of voters don't have issues with.

  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Any and all proposals are going to 'turn off many voters' since any and all plans will hurt some (e.g. cost more, provide less services),  while benefiting others (cost less,  provide more services).

So from a political POV any ideas are dangerous which is why McConnell and most members of the GOP wish to avoid the topic all together (other then getting rid of the ACA, without any replacement expect incremental proposals (like not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions),  that the vast majority of voters don't have issues with.

  

 

This poll is a bit old but it backs up what I am saying.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-obamacare-approval-112948

The GOP don't have a practical solution at the moment but their proposals don't turn off people any more than Sanders' proposals would. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

This poll is a bit old but it backs up what I am saying.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-obamacare-approval-112948

The GOP don't have a practical solution at the moment but their proposals don't turn off people any more than Sanders' proposals would. 

From what I have read, Sanders and the other Medicare-For-All proposers turn off far more than the GOP.  While most people favor a single payer or improved health care system, when asked if they are willing to increase taxes to pay for it, the percentage drops way down.  That is the tactic the GOP will use in November to defeat Dems.

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

From what I have read, Sanders and the other Medicare-For-All proposers turn off far more than the GOP.  While most people favor a single payer or improved health care system, when asked if they are willing to increase taxes to pay for it, the percentage drops way down.  That is the tactic the GOP will use in November to defeat Dems.

Well you would have to increase taxes if the GOP keeps slashing them for billionaires and corporations while shelling out for walls, more missiles and (socialist) handouts to make up for silly tariffs.

Funny how every other major country in the world manages to handle this for their citizens.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bogie56 said:

Well you would have to increase taxes if the GOP keeps slashing them for billionaires and corporations while shelling out for walls, more missiles and (socialist) handouts to make up for silly tariffs.

True, but the issue here is Medicare-For-All.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just After Sanders Revealed Fox Viewers' Approval of Medicare for All,

Trump's Medicare Chief 'Smears' Program on Network

Trump appointee Seema Verma claimed a Medicare for All system would be financially ruinous to the U.S. and American families—a claim which has been repeatedly debunked

".....studies including one by the Koch brothers-linked Mercatus Institute have revealed that the proposal would cost less than the current for-profit system.

While Sanders's proposal is expected to cost about $32 trillion over 10 years, the current system costs American families $3.5 trillion per year according to Verma's own agency. This puts projected healthcare costs at $35 trillion over a decade—if they stay exactly the same each year....

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/17/just-after-sanders-revealed-fox-viewers-approval-medicare-all-trumps-medicare-chief

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

While Sanders's proposal is expected to cost about $32 trillion over 10 years, the current system costs American families $3.5 trillion per year according to Verma's own agency. This puts projected healthcare costs at $35 trillion over a decade—if they stay exactly the same each year....

 

 

Let me get this straight. Current system costs $35 trillion for 10 years and MFA costs $32 trillion for 10 years.  So, theoretically $3 trillion is saved. BUT the main question and one that will decide the election is WHO pays the $32 trillion for MFA?  The current system is paid for by governments, citizens and employers and others.  MFA will be paid 100% by taxes, to include middle class and workers.

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

Let me get this straight. Current system costs $35 trillion for 10 years and MFA costs $32 trillion for 10 years.  So, theoretically $3 trillion is saved. BUT the main question and one that will decide the election is WHO pays the $32 trillion for MFA?  The current system is paid for by governments, citizens and employers and others.  MFA will be paid 100% by taxes, to include middle class and workers.

And where do the governments get the money to pay for the existing system?  Taxes.  So some Citizens and Employers might be relieved of this burden.  Isn't that what Trump's tax break is the equivalent of?  Get rid of that tax break and you have the money.

Anyway, even in Canada with Universal Health Care you still have private insurance and insurance through companies and unions.  It is a blend.  What they are proposing is a safety net so that no one goes uninsured.

I've heard stories from relatives who winter in Florida of people committing suicide when they are diagnosed with cancer.  Cancer that may even be cured.  Why?  So that they do not ruin their family financially.  You call that the greatest country in the world?  Cuba offers better.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

And where do the governments get the money to pay for the existing system?  Taxes.  So some Citizens and Employers might be relieved of this burden.  Isn't that what Trump's tax break is the equivalent of?  Get rid of that tax break and you have the money.

Anyway, even in Canada with Universal Health Care you still have private insurance and insurance through companies and unions.  It is a blend.  What they are proposing is a safety net so that no one goes uninsured.

I've heard stories from relatives who winter in Florida of people committing suicide when they are diagnosed with cancer.  Cancer that may even be cured.  Why?  So that they do not ruin their family financially.  You call that the greatest country in the world?  Cuba offers better.

You are wrong on so many levels I won't even try to explain.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

You are wrong on so many levels I won't even try to explain.

United Health, which covers almost s many people as Medicare made a profit of over 250 billion dollars last year.

Healthcare administrator companies (which is the primary function of so called healthcare insurance companies) should be non-profit.     This is why I like the Swiss system.     

 

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

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.

I don't;  I support multiple NON-profit health-care administrators.    But that poll data is very interesting.   Clearly a majority of Americans didn't feel this way when Obama and other Dem leaders pushed the ACA.

Anyhow,  any reform must remove for-profit administrators;  private companies like United Health,  shouldn't make a dime of profits from the US healthcare system.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019 at 7:10 PM, TalkTalk123 said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.

The polls I have seen show these same results, UNTIL the pollsters ask:  Are you in favor of raising taxes to pay for it.  Then it goes to something like 70% OPPOSED.

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

The polls I have seen show these same results, UNTIL the pollsters ask:  Are you in favor of raising taxes to pay for it.  Then it goes to something like 70% OPPOSED.

The above is too simplified of course they'll say no. If you give the the specifics of how it lays out and work, it would change.

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...