Medicare for All

[mtdjed]

What is Medicare for all with no premiums, no co pays, no Doctor limitations and the only premium for it is a $200 max cost for drugs/year. That does not sound like Medicare that I have. I have co pays, premiums and pay extra to have drug coverage and this after paying for years. Also certain coverages stop after awhile. My health care is not a right.

This campaign should not be calling this Medicare because it has no resemblance to Medicare which is not free by any measure.

[Northerner52]

Should be called socialized medicine. Get in line.

[jeriteri]

Medicare for All stands for Vote for Me and I'll give you everything for FREE. Sometimes that word FREE is all a person needs to hear to support or vote for an individual that's promising Free this and Free that. These people don't have the mindset or technical skills to research the right or wrong of promises being made to secure Votes. So, FREE, is all they will hear. Then those people pass it on to others in the realm of their life and thus followers are produced. They don't even think about who will pay their way or how this type of socialism will take money out of the pockets of hard working people. If you watched the Debate last night you saw people who are using the media to filter particular TRIGGER WORDS, like FREE, or MEDICARE FOR ALL or I was poor like you too, or little children told me this or that. Most of those on the debate last night do not have the intellect, professional or political experience, and I really wish there was one running, to actually be President. They don't have a clue to what the job entails.

[Bay Kid]

Most of these people running have no idea. They never paid for their GREAT coverage. Government has pretty well ruined good health care that was affordable. They have no idea.

[billethkid]

When such statements of

"_ _ _ _ _ free for all...."

are made the immediate follow up question should be how much is it going to cost and where will the $$$ come from.

Just imagine the impact on the care providing system in The Villages if on top of the already stressed capacity of providers.....another 25-50% increase (pick a number you like) in participation.

The end result? Less medical service and attention for everybody.

Unfortunately the magic word "free" elicits a strong response from the masses.

[NotGolfer]

Where is the "like" button on ToTV....so many comments where I'd click on it!!

[graciegirl]

Medicare for All stands for Vote for Me and I'll give you everything for FREE. Sometimes that word FREE is all a person needs to hear to support or vote for an individual that's promising Free this and Free that. These people don't have the mindset or technical skills to research the right or wrong of promises being made to secure Votes. So, FREE, is all they will hear. Then those people pass it on to others in the realm of their life and thus followers are produced. They don't even think about who will pay their way or how this type of socialism will take money out of the pockets of hard working people. If you watched the Debate last night you saw people who are using the media to filter particular TRIGGER WORDS, like FREE, or MEDICARE FOR ALL or I was poor like you too, or little children told me this or that. Most of those on the debate last night do not have the intellect, professional or political experience, and I really wish there was one running, to actually be President. They don't have a clue to what the job entails.

May I have your permission to copy this and post on Facebook?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What is Medicare for all with no premiums, no co pays, no Doctor limitations and the only premium for it is a $200 max cost for drugs/year. That does not sound like Medicare that I have. I have co pays, premiums and pay extra to have drug coverage and this after paying for years. Also certain coverages stop after awhile. My health care is not a right.

This campaign should not be calling this Medicare because it has no resemblance to Medicare which is not free by any measure.

The plan you refer to exists, and is called Medicaid. It's not available for all, but it is available for Americans who can't otherwise afford medical care. It is currently paid for through federal income tax. If you have received a paycheck from someone, you have paid the tax for it. The only thing is that the number of doctors who participate are extremely limited so yes - you can go to any doctor you want - but if the doctor doesn't participate, you pay 100% of their bill.

Socialized medicine isn't free, it is paid for through taxes. But you don't pay taxes PLUS a monthly premium. So in other words, the subscription itself - is free. The care is already paid for.

[karostay]

won't be long till this thread is closed

[Taltarzac725]

The plan you refer to exists, and is called Medicaid. It's not available for all, but it is available for Americans who can't otherwise afford medical care. It is currently paid for through federal income tax. If you have received a paycheck from someone, you have paid the tax for it. The only thing is that the number of doctors who participate are extremely limited so yes - you can go to any doctor you want - but if the doctor doesn't participate, you pay 100% of their bill.

Socialized medicine isn't free, it is paid for through taxes. But you don't pay taxes PLUS a monthly premium. So in other words, the subscription itself - is free. The care is already paid for.

Clear, concise answer. Thanks. :bigbow:

People should try Google too. The Facts on Medicare for All - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/the-facts-on-medicare-for-all/)

[retiredguy123]

The plan you refer to exists, and is called Medicaid. It's not available for all, but it is available for Americans who can't otherwise afford medical care. It is currently paid for through federal income tax. If you have received a paycheck from someone, you have paid the tax for it. The only thing is that the number of doctors who participate are extremely limited so yes - you can go to any doctor you want - but if the doctor doesn't participate, you pay 100% of their bill.

Socialized medicine isn't free, it is paid for through taxes. But you don't pay taxes PLUS a monthly premium. So in other words, the subscription itself - is free. The care is already paid for.
You say that Medicaid is paid for through Federal income tax. But, you failed to mention that the Government spends way more than they collect in taxes, much of it for Medicaid. That is why we have a 22 trillion dollar debt, and so far this fiscal year, we have already spent over a trillion dollars more than we have received in taxes. So, I think it is more accurate to say that about two thirds of Medicaid is paid for with taxes, and the other third is paid for with borrowed money that our country will need to pay back in the future.

[villagetinker]

The plan you refer to exists, and is called Medicaid. It's not available for all, but it is available for Americans who can't otherwise afford medical care. It is currently paid for through federal income tax. If you have received a paycheck from someone, you have paid the tax for it. The only thing is that the number of doctors who participate are extremely limited so yes - you can go to any doctor you want - but if the doctor doesn't participate, you pay 100% of their bill.

Socialized medicine isn't free, it is paid for through taxes. But you don't pay taxes PLUS a monthly premium. So in other words, the subscription itself - is free. The care is already paid for.

There was an article that various hospitals and other health care providers are suing MEDICAID for the costs of services provided, either the individual or their estate. Apparently there was a law signed under Clinton(?) possibly Obama(?) that allows this, so IMHO, while Medicaid might appear to be "free" or very low cost while you are living you or your estate may get hit later. The article was very interesting and something I did not realize. I tried to provide a link but it was not linkable.

[jeriteri]

May I have your permission to copy this and post on Facebook?

Social media is a worldwide avenue to everyone's life and positions. You have my permission.

[TheWarriors]

Don’t think you will find too many highly sought after doctors that accept Medicaid, even Medicare doesn’t pay enough for their time for your visit. With free healthcare, you will still end up with 2 systems as those able to afford better care will still pay out of pocket for quality care.

[retiredguy123]

Don’t think you will find too many highly sought after doctors that accept Medicaid, even Medicare doesn’t pay enough for their time for your visit. With free healthcare, you will still end up with 2 systems as those able to afford better care will still pay out of pocket for quality care.
I agree, but there are 70 million people enrolled on Medicaid and 43 million on Medicare. So, there must be a lot of doctors accepting these programs.

[graciegirl]

Social media is a worldwide avenue to everyone's life and positions. You have my permission.

I assumed permission and you have received much praise already.

[Martian]

First is everyone willing to admit there is a very serious problem that is coming and the sooner we address it the less painful that will be. Namely healthcare is going to bankrupt our country in the not to distant future if we don't do something to change course.

The question is , what is the solution. More of the same is NOT a solution. More of what is not working is not going to magically start working.

The comment "free" really is a dog whistle that will gets lots of cheering and accomplishes nothing - on either side. Nothing is FREE. And anyone over 12 should realize it. Democrats that run on the use of the term "free" are doing themselves and the country a disservice. Some have defined how they plan to pay for the "medicare for all", some haven't. Those that have not provided a mechanism to pay for their plan, should be ignored - by both liberals and conservatives.

In my opinion the first step to solve a problem is to define the problem. I would like to hear your definition of the problem.

My definition of the problem is what I call predatory capitalism. That is the concept of profit at any expense. That a corporation has only one goal and that is to maximize profit, regardless of what it costs society or citizens. There is nothing wrong with predatory capitalism in the case of things that are not necessary. Cars, TV, Airplanes, etc, etc. However, when a company can hold a parent hostage by charging exorbitant fees for a $10 shot that would save their Childs life, that is predatory capitalism that is immoral and should not be permitted - IMHO.

I am all in favor of capitalism when the market can control it, which is only true when you life is not held hostage by the corporation.

So, here is my idea of how to solve the problem and there is numerous successful examples of this around the world.

The idea is that we recognize that basic healthcare is a human right every citizen should have. As such the government taxes everyone, and uses those to provide basic healthcare to everyone. Citizens do not pay the doctor, citizens to not pay the pharmacy, citizens do not pay the hospital. The government pays for it all, and collects taxes to fund that payment - nothing is free.

Notice I said BASIC healthcare. I do think that private health insurance should be available to anyone that wants and can afford it - to cover say, heart transplants, etc. The details of what is BASIC and what was not can be debated, and should be.

To make this work, free market capitalism can not be allowed in the basic healthcare market. The government must regulate costs, otherwise you end up with the fiasco that is going on with universities, where tuition has sky rocketed to the point that students now have trillions of dollars of debt, just to get an education This happened at least in part because the government provided "free" loans to students, so they could afford to pay the tuition, the universities saw the students could affords more, so they charged more. Round and round it went with skyrocketing tuition costs.

That is what happens with the government "pays" for something supplied by the free market. Market responds by adjusting the price to what people can afford, and with the government, there is no limit to what it appears to be able to afford.

So, to "fix" healthcare, we have to decide as a country that healthcare is a right, everyone must have access to basic healthcare. That has real benefits for society, with increased productivity, reduced illness (reducing costs) and people getting treatment for most basic issues early when it is less expensive than waiting until it is serious and expensive. To achieve that and not have the healthcare industry costs run crazy, the government must regulate (control/socialism) the healthcare industry. We would set a "reasonable" profit level that companies can make - 15% to 25%. Not 1000% profit. With a fixed profit margin, the government can then calculate the necessary tax rates to pay the costs.

As I saids this system (or variations of it can be seen around the world if you want to look, instead of pointing out failed socialistic states, look at the successes.

For a closers to home example look to the VA healthcare system. The VA struggles because they can not regulate costs, but they can negotiate costs (unlike Medicare) and that helps. So, the VA has a cost incentive to keep you healthy. They have a limited budget, and if you get sick, it costs them to cure you. If they can keep you healthy it helps meet their budget. And that attitude showed in everything they do. Unlike Medicare where the doctors have NO motivation to keep you healthy, their profit is in TREATING YOU not preventing to curing illness. It works.

That is my proposal, socialized medicine, similar to the VA healthcare.

What is your solution? I expect most posts (if anyone bothers to post) about my solution will simply be to tell me how stupid I am. Maybe I am stupid, but I have a plan, do you? How do you propose solving the coming unsustainable healthcare costs? Dos you solution work for you alone, or for everyone? Should the solution work only for the rich, or for everyone?

I am interested in honest disagreement supported with reasonable arguments, name calling and dog whistles with no supporting evidence will one ignore.

[justjim]

When Current Medicare was proposed we heard similar cries of “it will never work”. What would most seniors do without Medicare today? There are many proposals for changes in our health care system currently being “floated” about especially during election years. Sense there are so many “players” involved in any change i.e. Insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, Hospitals, Clinics, Congress, and The President to name a few - it’s complicated. Frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough to make an intelligent comment on what changes should be made in our health care systems so I am going to hope for the best outcome and deal with whatever that outcome happens to be.

[Taltarzac725]

First is everyone willing to admit there is a very serious problem that is coming and the sooner we address it the less painful that will be. Namely healthcare is going to bankrupt our country in the not to distant future if we don't do something to change course.

The question is , what is the solution. More of the same is NOT a solution. More of what is not working is not going to magically start working.

The comment "free" really is a dog whistle that will gets lots of cheering and accomplishes nothing - on either side. Nothing is FREE. And anyone over 12 should realize it. Democrats that run on the use of the term "free" are doing themselves and the country a disservice. Some have defined how they plan to pay for the "medicare for all", some haven't. Those that have not provided a mechanism to pay for their plan, should be ignored - by both liberals and conservatives.

In my opinion the first step to solve a problem is to define the problem. I would like to hear your definition of the problem.

My definition of the problem is what I call predatory capitalism. That is the concept of profit at any expense. That a corporation has only one goal and that is to maximize profit, regardless of what it costs society or citizens. There is nothing wrong with predatory capitalism in the case of things that are not necessary. Cars, TV, Airplanes, etc, etc. However, when a company can hold a parent hostage by charging exorbitant fees for a $10 shot that would save their Childs life, that is predatory capitalism that is immoral and should not be permitted - IMHO.

I am all in favor of capitalism when the market can control it, which is only true when you life is not held hostage by the corporation.

So, here is my idea of how to solve the problem and there is numerous successful examples of this around the world.

The idea is that we recognize that basic healthcare is a human right every citizen should have. As such the government taxes everyone, and uses those to provide basic healthcare to everyone. Citizens do not pay the doctor, citizens to not pay the pharmacy, citizens do not pay the hospital. The government pays for it all, and collects taxes to fund that payment - nothing is free.

Notice I said BASIC healthcare. I do think that private health insurance should be available to anyone that wants and can afford it - to cover say, heart transplants, etc. The details of what is BASIC and what was not can be debated, and should be.

To make this work, free market capitalism can not be allowed in the basic healthcare market. The government must regulate costs, otherwise you end up with the fiasco that is going on with universities, where tuition has sky rocketed to the point that students now have trillions of dollars of debt, just to get an education This happened at least in part because the government provided "free" loans to students, so they could afford to pay the tuition, the universities saw the students could affords more, so they charged more. Round and round it went with skyrocketing tuition costs.

That is what happens with the government "pays" for something supplied by the free market. Market responds by adjusting the price to what people can afford, and with the government, there is no limit to what it appears to be able to afford.

So, to "fix" healthcare, we have to decide as a country that healthcare is a right, everyone must have access to basic healthcare. That has real benefits for society, with increased productivity, reduced illness (reducing costs) and people getting treatment for most basic issues early when it is less expensive than waiting until it is serious and expensive. To achieve that and not have the healthcare industry costs run crazy, the government must regulate (control/socialism) the healthcare industry. We would set a "reasonable" profit level that companies can make - 15% to 25%. Not 1000% profit. With a fixed profit margin, the government can then calculate the necessary tax rates to pay the costs.

As I saids this system (or variations of it can be seen around the world if you want to look, instead of pointing out failed socialistic states, look at the successes.

For a closers to home example look to the VA healthcare system. The VA struggles because they can not regulate costs, but they can negotiate costs (unlike Medicare) and that helps. So, the VA has a cost incentive to keep you healthy. They have a limited budget, and if you get sick, it costs them to cure you. If they can keep you healthy it helps meet their budget. And that attitude showed in everything they do. Unlike Medicare where the doctors have NO motivation to keep you healthy, their profit is in TREATING YOU not preventing to curing illness. It works.

That is my proposal, socialized medicine, similar to the VA healthcare.

What is your solution? I expect most posts (if anyone bothers to post) about my solution will simply be to tell me how stupid I am. Maybe I am stupid, but I have a plan, do you? How do you propose solving the coming unsustainable healthcare costs? Dos you solution work for you alone, or for everyone? Should the solution work only for the rich, or for everyone?

I am interested in honest disagreement supported with reasonable arguments, name calling and dog whistles with no supporting evidence will one ignore.

That is a very thoughtful and useful post. Thanks. Maybe we can get an intelligent conversation started. I have met many intelligent people here in the Villages and many in Florida when I was volunteering at two public libraries in Palm Harbor, FL. I hope people with more than dog whistles and gross overgeneralizations will join in this TOTV.

[JimJohnson]

How should I justify in my mind that if a person don’t work long enough and hard enough on a job good enough to pay for their own medical, then they can just die. I think the government should offer free euthanasia and body disposal so we don’t end up with decaying poor dead people all over the place. Maybe a look at soylent green as an alternative.

[Taltarzac725]

Healthcare in the Netherlands: A guide to the Dutch healthcare system - TransferWise (https://transferwise.com/us/blog/healthcare-system-in-the-netherlands)

We should examine what other countries have done about their health care systems.

[JimJohnson]

Healthcare in the Netherlands: A guide to the Dutch healthcare system - TransferWise (https://transferwise.com/us/blog/healthcare-system-in-the-netherlands)

We should examine what other countries have done about their health care systems.

Yes! :bigbow:

[graciegirl]

Healthcare in the Netherlands: A guide to the Dutch healthcare system - TransferWise (https://transferwise.com/us/blog/healthcare-system-in-the-netherlands)

We should examine what other countries have done about their health care systems.

I had a friend in the Netherlands that had to wait more than four months for a Mastectomy. In Austria they pay more than 50% taxes but they get free college tuition..... but only the highest performing quarter of the high school graduating class is allowed to attend.

[retiredguy123]

I had a friend in the Netherlands that had to wait more than four months for a Mastectomy. In Austria they pay more than 50% taxes but they get free college tuition..... but only the highest performing quarter of the high school graduating class is allowed to attend.
It is interesting that the link provided doesn't say anything about a four month wait for a major, time sensitive surgery. Seems like that would be an important thing to include in the health care description.

[retiredguy123]

Here is my health plan. The Government should provide:

1. Catastrophic insurance coverage for all citizens
2. Basic coverage for indigents
3. Regulations against price gouging
4. A competitive marketplace for health care where the patient has choices and financial responsibility
5. Private insurance should be available, but no plan should be allowed to provide 100 percent payment for covered services.

I believe that competition and patient involvement is the only way to control costs.

[Taltarzac725]

I had a friend in the Netherlands that had to wait more than four months for a Mastectomy. In Austria they pay more than 50% taxes but they get free college tuition..... but only the highest performing quarter of the high school graduating class is allowed to attend.

• Netherlands: waiting time for surgery or hospitalization, by treatment 2016 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/979166/waiting-time-for-surgery-or-hospitalization-in-the-netherlands-by-treatment/)

I did find this.

[JimJohnson]

• Netherlands: waiting time for surgery or hospitalization, by treatment 2016 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/979166/waiting-time-for-surgery-or-hospitalization-in-the-netherlands-by-treatment/)

I did find this.

• Netherlands: waiting time for surgery or hospitalization, by treatment 2016 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/979166/waiting-time-for-surgery-or-hospitalization-in-the-netherlands-by-treatment/)

Some post fake news, but when it comes to medical treatment we all have a responsibility to the truth.

[retiredguy123]

• Netherlands: waiting time for surgery or hospitalization, by treatment 2016 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/979166/waiting-time-for-surgery-or-hospitalization-in-the-netherlands-by-treatment/)

I did find this.
I went to the link, but it looks like you have to pay to read the statistics?

[CFrance]

Healthcare in the Netherlands: A guide to the Dutch healthcare system - TransferWise (https://transferwise.com/us/blog/healthcare-system-in-the-netherlands)

We should examine what other countries have done about their health care systems.
Thank you, Tal. Wait time for elective surgery might be a lot longer than for critical care situations.

[JimJohnson]

In the Netherlands, even elective surgery like breast Enhancement is only 6 weeks. 4 months waiting for a required surgery is not true. We all must do fact checking before making untrue statements. This is about health and could have a negative affect on someone’s mental status.

[JimJohnson]

Hospital waiting times keep rising in Netherlands | NL Times (https://nltimes.nl/2017/01/03/hospital-waiting-times-keep-rising-netherlands)

Please research before making false claims.

[CFrance]

In the Netherlands, even elective surgery like breast Enhancement is only 6 weeks. 4 months waiting for a required surgery is not true. We all must do fact checking before making untrue statements. This is about health and could have a negative affect on someone’s mental status.
That's what I was thinking. Breast reduction surgery is not a crucial surgery. It's elective.

[JimJohnson]

I went to the link, but it looks like you have to pay to read the statistics?

Look at this one
Hospital waiting times keep rising in Netherlands | NL Times (https://nltimes.nl/2017/01/03/hospital-waiting-times-keep-rising-netherlands)

[geofitz13]

When comparing health care systems of various countries, we need to look at what seems, at first, to be unrelated spending. That is, defense spending. Look at the tax rates in the countries that have been cited: Canada, Netherlands, Sweeden. Virtually no military spending, so their near-confiscatory tax rates can support universal health care. If the US were to eliminate military spending, or drastically cut such spending, and then adopt the same near-confiscatory tax rates, we could afford universal health care. I'm not at all convinced that going that route would be advisable. I can't imagine any other country coming to our defense.

[Taltarzac725]

When comparing health care systems of various countries, we need to look at what seems, at first, to be unrelated spending. That is, defense spending. Look at the tax rates in the countries that have been cited: Canada, Netherlands, Sweeden. Virtually no military spending, so their near-confiscatory tax rates can support universal health care. If the US were to eliminate military spending, or drastically cut such spending, and then adopt the same near-confiscatory tax rates, we could afford universal health care. I'm not at all convinced that going that route would be advisable. I can't imagine any other country coming to our defense.

We have nuclear weapons, however, which do seem to put in question the need of the development of pre-WWI kind of navies, air forces and armies. This is no longer 1944 as we had the events of 1945 that should have changed drastically how we look at the military. It does though really highlight the need for human intelligence on the ground with respect to others' capabilities related to nuclear weapons. The cold war and all that.

[graciegirl]

In the Netherlands, even elective surgery like breast Enhancement is only 6 weeks. 4 months waiting for a required surgery is not true. We all must do fact checking before making untrue statements. This is about health and could have a negative affect on someone’s mental status.

This was my friends sister and it happened about four years ago.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I agree, but there are 70 million people enrolled on Medicaid and 43 million on Medicare. So, there must be a lot of doctors accepting these programs.

Many of the 70million are children whose families live in poverty. Many of the 70million are adults who are usually healthy and have few medical needs at all. Some Medicaid recipients are homeless, some are drug addicted, some have chronic illness that requires long-term treatment.

But as I said - not all physicians accept Medicaid. Many do not. So if you have a bad knee that can be repaired (rather than replaced) they might force you to undergo months of excruciating physical therapy, multiple prescription drugs including steroids, a myriad of tests, and basically exhaust every POSSIBLE non-surgical method of treatment for a few years, until they finally cave and authorize the surgery. And then, the closest doctor who accepts Medicaid patients and does the out-patient surgery is a 3-hour drive from your house.

Good luck with that.

Medicaid is wonderful - if you have few medical needs. There are kids whose parents drive them every weekend to an entirely different state for chemo treatments, because their state's chemo center that accepts children - don't accept childrens' medicaid. Or there's a 2-year waiting list for those that do.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It is interesting that the link provided doesn't say anything about a four month wait for a major, time sensitive surgery. Seems like that would be an important thing to include in the health care description.

Her post is also inaccurate with regards to public universities in Austria. They are tuition-free to ALL Austrian students, and only non-Austrians pay a modest tuition fee, and ALL students pay a student union fee.

[Bucco]

A couple brief points; First, what is ALWAYS overlooked in these discussions is the fact that Health Insurance IS NOT Health Care. We have a severe shortage of physicians in this country that is only getting worse. We need 10,000 more Physicians today and double that in 15 years. Why is this happening? Because older Physicians are retiring and not enough new ones are being trained. It takes a minimum of 12 years to turn out a newly minted Doc and these highly skilled life savers are not going to work for free. So, add another 50 million or so to an already understaffed system and what you get is not health care but triage which leads to substandard health care for all.

Another fact that is overlooked is that most of the other systems cited around the world as proof that government controlled health care works are generally countries with a fraction of the population of the U.S. Example New Zealand - great general care but population of 5 million. Same with any EU country. We have 325 million people in this country. You cannot compare us to countries with a fraction of that population.

Finally, the ACA was supposed to give INSURANCE to 30 million uninsured. Now all the Democrats are running from the program they supported lock, stock, and barrel. Why is that? Because the American people do not want to be told what to do, they want freedom of choice. And they have learned that health insurance is NOT health care.

More later

Note that the ACA has been gutted. Those are not my words but come directly from the Government.

We were told there would be an alternative, but still not forthcoming.

Adding that Bucco loudly and with great gusto opposed the ACA on this forum (see my past posts in that regard during that time frame), but certainly never expected it to be gutted without a replacement. I felt it would end up being modified, hopefully improvedon.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Any service or benefit provided will not be free. Here is the problem I have placing government in charge. Our Government has paid $14,000 each for 3D printed toilet seat lids, $436 for hammers, $117 for soap dish covers, $999 for pliers, and on and on. Government has proven consistently that it cannot manage efficiently. For four decades Congress, that is mandated to pass a budget annually, has only done so 4 times, 1977~1989~1995~1997. With this in mind I cannot in good conscience support placing our Government in charge of Medicare for all, not withstanding all the other “FREE” services that are under discussion. The more we are taxed only increases the percentage/amount of wasted spending that will follow. Tax revenues will be paying for all of this. The concept of Medicare for all, healthcare for all, etc., etc., may or may not be bad concepts, except for the proposed manager of these plans, the US Government.

Then it is our responsibility as the people who decide who gets to be those plan managers, to decide wisely.

[Northwoods]

This is a quote from the Netherlands Healthcare link above:
"You must be referred by your local doctor in order to see a specialist. Most specialists work in a hospital setting, and unfortunately you may experience a long wait period. The basic health insurance package will cover a visit to a specialist, but an excess fee may apply, depending on the treatment."

[Northwoods]

I have one request for any universal healthcare system that is implemented in the U.S. All of Congress has to give up their current healthcare package and be put on the universal healthcare system. They have to pay any fees not paid by the universal healthcare system. I do think that will make them pay a little more attention to what they vote into law.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I have one request for any universal healthcare system that is implemented in the U.S. All of Congress has to give up their current healthcare package and be put on the universal healthcare system. They have to pay any fees not paid by the universal healthcare system. I do think that will make them pay a little more attention to what they vote into law.

All of Congress is provided the same packages that are available through the ACA Marketplace. They can get that, or they can pay out of pocket for whatever other plan they wish with no reimbursement.

[Martian]

I have one request for any universal healthcare system that is implemented in the U.S. All of Congress has to give up their current healthcare package and be put on the universal healthcare system. They have to pay any fees not paid by the universal healthcare system. I do think that will make them pay a little more attention to what they vote into law.

Well, you get your wish,. Sen Grassy (R) in 2009 wrote a law requiring Congress Critters to do just that. But, it is even more so for them, since other citizens only have to maintain employer based insurance to qualify to not purchase their's through ACA. Congress does not qualify for that exemption. So, in fact Congress has stricter rules applied to ensure they must "go through the hoops and red tape" that American's have to go through when using ACA.

So, a R (Grassy) wrote the law, and a D (Obama) signed it into law.

[TexaninVA]

What is Medicare for all with no premiums, no co pays, no Doctor limitations and the only premium for it is a $200 max cost for drugs/year. That does not sound like Medicare that I have. I have co pays, premiums and pay extra to have drug coverage and this after paying for years. Also certain coverages stop after awhile. My health care is not a right.

This campaign should not be calling this Medicare because it has no resemblance to Medicare which is not free by any measure.

It's basically Venezuelan-style health care.

[JimJohnson]

This article
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2015-43-en.pdf?expires=1568454644&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=DDB4E258A61FFBBC6EE72CD370075AC2
Has easy to read charts the clearly show surgery wait times in the Netherlands has been one of the best in the world. I never trust friends and relatives when it comes to health issues.

[Vikingjunior]

Many doctors take Medicaid because it’s not really Medicaid anymore. All Medicaid recipients are now on a managed care. It’s true in the old days not many doctors accepted Medicaid but things have changed dramatically.

[bilcon]

Ask the Europeans how socialized medicine is working for them. Many of them have given up on it and are buying private insurance and going to doctors of their choice. Nothing is free in this world except for those who don't wish to work.

[Martian]

It's basically Venezuelan-style health care.

Why did you used Venezuelan heath care as an example, because that is a failed, state?

How about these note that none of these are failed states, all are rated as the citizens being happier and healthier than the US - (Notice the US at the bottom of the list) by intonations studies.

Netherlands
Australia
Sweden
Japan
Austria
Germany
France
United Kingdom

United States

[Martian]

Ask the Europeans how socialized medicine is working for them. Many of them have given up on it and are buying private insurance and going to doctors of their choice. Nothing is free in this world except for those who don't wish to work.

Of a billion people, some are dissatisfied. Why now ask how many American's are happy with our health care system. EVERY independent study shows citizens of the following countries are happier and healthier than Americans.

Netherlands
Australia
Sweden
Japan
Austria
German
France
United Kingdom

Obviously when. dealing with BILLIONS of people one is not going to find perfection in this lifetime. So, what we are looking for is better. Better as rated by real costs (not just premiums), out come (how healthy is the population) and "customer satisfaction". Our system is almost universally disliked (90%) while other industrialized countries have much higher satisfaction and performance levels.

We can keep looking for perfection by throwing out individual anecdotal examples of problems and just keep paying more and more and getting less and less, or we can grow up, quit making name calling more important than discussion, and look for a way to improve our system.

It really is our choice, what do we want to leave our children? Higher bills and poor quality care, or lower bills and higher quality care. We choose, but they have to live with it.

[Martian]

Ask the Europeans how socialized medicine is working for them. .

The World Health Organization did just that, here is their results:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 USA

[Martian]

Nothing is free in this world except for those who don't wish to work.

This is just a dog whistles and by that I mean it is a cheering point at rallies, but has nothing to do with helping the situation.

No serious candidates are believe that some how they can wave a magic piece of legislation and magical fairies will show up and make everyone healthy.

Everything costs, what we are trying to do is to find a way to have healthy citizens that we can afford.

Universal health care proposals take into account cost/benefit analysis and show that by improving everyones health society (all of us) will on a average pay less.

Obviously no system is perfect, but constantly pointing out obvious failing of some systems doesn't help find a system that will work.

[Polar Bear]

Guess all those lists make it fact...American citizens are all miserable and unhealthy compared to the rest of the world.

Yeah, right.

[geofitz13]

We have nuclear weapons, however, which do seem to put in question the need of the development of pre-WWI kind of navies, air forces and armies. This is no longer 1944 as we had the events of 1945 that should have changed drastically how we look at the military. It does though really highlight the need for human intelligence on the ground with respect to others' capabilities related to nuclear weapons. The cold war and all that.

Wow. If I am reading this correctly, you think our only defense should be nuclear? There are some really bad people out there who would do us harm. I do not want to rely on nuclear as our only defense.

[Taltarzac725]

Do find ObamaCare a bit of a huge mess.

I did not qualify for it because our household takes in too much money.

I am very worried though about what will happen with medical care in the future. Especially with pre-existing conditions on how the relate to medical insurance.

[CFrance]

Ask the Europeans how socialized medicine is working for them. Many of them have given up on it and are buying private insurance and going to doctors of their choice. Nothing is free in this world except for those who don't wish to work.
Where are the facts to substantiate your claim? All the top-rated health care systems in the world are national health care systems.

We live in France for almost half the year, and qualify for France's health care. I hear NOBODY over here complaining about their health care. In fact, it is highly praised.

Here's another list to add to the WHO list. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-healthcare-in-the-world/

[CFrance]

Ask the Europeans how socialized medicine is working for them. Many of them have given up on it and are buying private insurance and going to doctors of their choice. Nothing is free in this world except for those who don't wish to work.
Where are the facts to substantiate your claim? All the top-rated health care systems in the world are national health care systems.

We live in France for almost half the year, and qualify for France's health care. I hear NOBODY over here complaining about their health care. In fact, it is highly praised.

Here's another list to add to the one Martian gave. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-healthcare-in-the-world/

[JimJohnson]

Let’s get back to Medicare for all!!!

[JimJohnson]

Where are the facts to substantiate your claim? All the top-rated health care systems in the world are national health care systems.

We live in France for almost half the year, and qualify for France's health care. I hear NOBODY over here complaining about their health care. In fact, it is highly praised.

Here's another list to add to the one Martian gave. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-healthcare-in-the-world/


This is true of the majority of countries with socialized medicine. In the US, the wealthy can have cosmetic surgery while the poor cannot get life saving surgery. That’s wrong no matter how you say it. Another problem in the US, The vast majority of Americans DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM. In the Christian faith, a true Christian would sacrifice themselves to help others. Unfortunately in America, that’s not what we have.
:pray:

[Boomer]

Like a lot of things, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

There is a huge need for access to decent health insurance for people to buy in to — at a reasonable cost — if they so CHOOSE. Not like the days before the ACA blocked insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions. (It was not so long ago when people would pay good money for individual coverage and then not be covered like they were led to believe. Sometimes I think we are a nation of amnesiacs.)

If such a plan were to be available through the government, it could be standardized, like Medicare, and could change a lot of American lives — early retirees; those who have been downsized; entrepreneurs; those who are working at jobs with no benefits — and others I cannot think of right now because I am hurrying to try not to get caught up in this thread.

If anyone so opposed to Democrats actually gave a fair listening to the candidates the other night, they would have heard those who said what I just said — answers are in the middle. Choice is important.

Health insurance and Big Pharma are among the biggest lobbyists. Our American lives are now held in the hands of those with greasy palms.

I think the battle call of “Medicare for All” is drowning out those who understand the big picture best and want to solve the problem with fairness and common sense — middle ground.

[perrjojo]

What is Medicare for all with no premiums, no co pays, no Doctor limitations and the only premium for it is a $200 max cost for drugs/year. That does not sound like Medicare that I have. I have co pays, premiums and pay extra to have drug coverage and this after paying for years. Also certain coverages stop after awhile. My health care is not a right.

This campaign should not be calling this Medicare because it has no resemblance to Medicare which is not free by any measure.
My thoughts exactly. We paid Medicare tax while working. A part B per come out of our social security and we need supplemental insurance. Medicare is far from free.

[Martian]

Guess all those lists make it fact...American citizens are all miserable and unhealthy compared to the rest of the world.

Yeah, right.

I did not at any point say Americans are miserable and unhappy compared to the rest of the world.

There are shades of grey. Americans pay 2 to 3 times what people in other industrialized nations and get poorer outcomes for their money - does that make you happier than them? No, does it make you miserable - no. It means we can do better - you know that whole GREAT thing.

There are more than first and last place. There are more than thrilled and depressed. There are hundreds of countries where people are are sicker and less happy than we are.

Are you satisfied comparing yourself (our country) and the countries in last place? When I ran track in school I was never happy saying "I didn't come in last". I strived to be the best I could be, that that meant in or near first place.

[Martian]

Like a lot of things, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I agree completely.

There is a huge need for access to decent health insurance for people to buy in to — at a reasonable cost — if they so CHOOSE.

I somewhat disagree, I believe we must have a universal healthcare for EVERYONE. I do not believe basic vaccinations and basic healthcare should be optional, even at the individuals discretion. I do not want my next door neighbor bringing home the black plaque and killing me and my children.

If anyone so opposed to Democrats actually gave a fair listening to the candidates the other night, they would have heard those who said what I just said — answers are in the middle. Choice is important.


I agree, obviously there are some positions that aero not possible or practical. But, one thing is certain, if we continue down the path we are on, there are no good things waiting for us.

We as a nation should be working towards a better life for our children.

[graciegirl]

Rated by my French friends and rated by the web sites that were provided on this thread.

Actually, it's the other way around. The rising popularity of medical tourism in France (https://blog.parisattitude.com/en/rising-popularity-medical-tourism-france)

Of course a person who lives and experiences the health care system in their country would be the best one to ask about quality of care. The French have no problem complaining about their government systems. They don't wave their flags and brag about how great their country is. They protest mightily. It's a totally different cultural atmosphere.

I have personal experience with French friends' cancer care, both here in SW France and up in Paris. Also friends with various surgeries, from cataracts to heart problems.

Look at the web sites that were presented by others.


The US is my home country and also my favorite country. But I have a realistic view about our health care system. It is most definitely not rated well.

Well and fairly debated. I listened and will remember and look closer. I always can count on you. We may not always agree but you are my furry friends mom.

[skyking]

I worked in healthcare my entire career both on the provider side and payer side. Also I taught part time in a Masters in Health Administration program for over twenty years. I am really open to both sides on this discussion.

Some observations:
1. There are two types of national healthcare. A system where the government provides the care (British system, VA system) and where the government provides insurance (Canadian system).

2. In both systems emergency care and primary, preventative care are quite good. In both systems non life threatening elective services are rationed (knee replacement, cataract surgery).

3. Physicians and healthcare providers make less. There is little to no marketing of hospital and physician services, thus no " mint on the pillow " add ons like gourmet menus and plush private rooms.

4. There are less innovations and break through discoveries. (How many new medical discoveries have come out of the Netherlands and France?)

To me it depends on what we want as a nation. Immediate availability and plush hospitals which are not necessary and expensive but what we Americans have come to expect? Or good quality but no frills healthcare like our VA system.

[JimJohnson]

I’m sorry if I offended anyone with my true Christian remark. Its just in my opinion I see covering all medical needs for all people regardless of their financial status as a true spirit of Jesus Christ and his message too us all. I don’t know if the term Medicare for all is the way to say it or not, but when I hear, I worked for my coverage and it’s not a right, I tense up. Again, in my opinion, to even insinuate that a man with wealth should have better access to lifesaving medical attention than the poor or the old or children, that is not Christian.
I will listen if one wants to say Medicare for all, except those that are otherwise capable but refuse to contribute, fine. That is not the complaint I hear, it’s simply me with wealth and them. The them includes many that deserve our love and help. So, define the program as MEDICARE FOR ALL EXCEPT then perhaps we will have a better opportunity to be Christian

[Two Bills]

I worked in healthcare my entire career both on the provider side and payer side. Also I taught part time in a Masters in Health Administration program for over twenty years. I am really open to both sides on this discussion.

Some observations:
1. There are two types of national healthcare. A system where the government provides the care (British system, VA system) and where the government provides insurance (Canadian system).

2. In both systems emergency care and primary, preventative care are quite good. In both systems non life threatening elective services are rationed (knee replacement, cataract surgery).

3. Physicians and healthcare providers make less. There is little to no marketing of hospital and physician services, thus no " mint on the pillow " add ons like gourmet menus and plush private rooms.

4. There are less innovations and break through discoveries. (How many new medical discoveries have come out of the Netherlands and France?)

To me it depends on what we want as a nation. Immediate availability and plush hospitals which are not necessary and expensive but what we Americans have come to expect? Or good quality but no frills healthcare like our VA system.

Plenty of cutting edge surgery and treatments originate in these countries, and in Europe in general, but probably not as much as some of the more wealthy institutions in the US.
However if it is denied to many/most US citizens because of its cost, what is its benefit, if but a few can afford it?

[JimJohnson]

I did not say that.
Just wondering why he wanted to get back to Medicare for all, then hit us with Communisim & Socialism.
No, no shame on me, right?

Your right, I should have clarified my comment. I so often hear that healthcare is like socialism if you don’t have the means to pay for it yourself. I put more into a category of the police, the fire department and paved roads. Not all of us pay enough taxes to pay for these things, but I separate these and health care into rights rather than socialism. We have far too many giveaways in this country and far too many programs that so many take advantage of, but health care must not be grouped in with the real socialist programs.

[gatorbill1]

If we were to copy Europe, we would have a better health care system and provide healthcare to all - what you want to call it is becoming political, and healthcare should not be political. Healthcare is taking care of one another.
I have been to Europe many times and have not heard many complaints. They pay higher taxes, but it takes care of health AND retirement.

[JimJohnson]

If we were to copy Europe, we would have a better health care system and provide healthcare to all - what you want to call it is becoming political, and healthcare should not be political. Healthcare is taking care of one another.
I have been to Europe many times and have not heard many complaints. They pay higher taxes, but it takes care of health AND retirement.

:bigbow:
I wish I had said it like you.
:bigbow:

[Martian]

I have been to Europe many times and have not heard many complaints. They pay higher taxes, but it takes care of health AND retirement.

But the point you left off is that despite paying MORE taxes, their bottom line is they pay LESS than the US for those same services and end up with more income not less.

And the reduction in stress by KNOWING that healthcare for them and their children regardless of any other circumstances (losing their job?) is guaranteed is something that is hard for Americans to understand. We always have that little thought in the back of our mind - can I afford to get sick, will the insurance company deny the treatment I need. For some those worries are more than for others, but even with the BEST insurance policies in the US, there is always the situation where the insurance company disagrees with the doctors treatment plan.

I have known people that work for the biggest (best?) insurance companies. Their job definition was very clear, to find ways to NOT pay claims. They were in what the companies call LOSS PREVENTION. The companies consider paying the claims that you are paying them to pay as LOSS...

[JimJohnson]

:coolsmiley:But the point you left off is that despite paying MORE taxes, their bottom line is they pay LESS than the US for those same services and end up with more income not less.

And the reduction in stress by KNOWING that healthcare for them and their children regardless of any other circumstances (losing their job?) is guaranteed is something that is hard for Americans to understand. We always have that little thought in the back of our mind - can I afford to get sick, will the insurance company deny the treatment I need. For some those worries are more than for others, but even with the BEST insurance policies in the US, there is always the situation where the insurance company disagrees with the doctors treatment plan.

I have known people that work for the biggest (best?) insurance companies. Their job definition was very clear, to find ways to NOT pay claims. They were in what the companies call LOSS PREVENTION. The companies consider paying the claims that you are paying them to pay as LOSS...

[Love2Swim]

You say that Medicaid is paid for through Federal income tax. But, you failed to mention that the Government spends way more than they collect in taxes, much of it for Medicaid. That is why we have a 22 trillion dollar debt, and so far this fiscal year, we have already spent over a trillion dollars more than we have received in taxes. So, I think it is more accurate to say that about two thirds of Medicaid is paid for with taxes, and the other third is paid for with borrowed money that our country will need to pay back in the future.

You seem to infer that Medicaid is the cause of the debt, which of course, it is not. The debt has increased in the last two years due to the lack of corporate tax income which drastically lowered revenue.

[retiredguy123]

If insurance companies didn't question some treatments proposed by doctors, there would be quack clinics on every street corner performing bogus treatments for thousands of dollars. And, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between effective and ineffective treatments and medicine.

[JimJohnson]

You seem to infer that Medicaid is the cause of the debt, which of course, it is not. The debt has increased in the last two years due to the lack of corporate tax income which drastically lowered revenue.

Bingo:popcorn:

[retiredguy123]

You seem to infer that Medicaid is the cause of the debt, which of course, it is not. The debt has increased in the last two years due to the lack of corporate tax income which drastically lowered revenue.
I was just pointing out that Medicaid is not paid for with Federal income tax revenues as one poster claimed. The tax revenues have been inadequate to pay for the things the Government spends money on for many years. Currently, we spend about 4 trillion dollars per year, but only collect about 3 trillion in revenue. So, the debt is increasing by about a trillion dollars per year. That is the math, regardless of who pays what in taxes.

[Polar Bear]

You seem to infer that Medicaid is the cause of the debt, which of course, it is not. The debt has increased in the last two years due to the lack of corporate tax income which drastically lowered revenue.
So debt is not related to spending or expenses. Ahh. I get it now. :shocked:

That's great info for all you private budget managers too!

[JimJohnson]

If insurance companies didn't question some treatments proposed by doctors, there would be quack clinics on every street corner performing bogus treatments for thousands of dollars. And, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between effective and ineffective treatments and medicine.

Medicare for all would allow for the powers to streamline the system to help all rather than the few. I certainly don’t want scamming in our medical referral system, but far worse than that is to eliminate an entire group based on the MONEY!!!

[skyking]

But the point you left off is that despite paying MORE taxes, their bottom line is they pay LESS than the US for those same services and end up with more income not less.

And the reduction in stress by KNOWING that healthcare for them and their children regardless of any other circumstances (losing their job?) is guaranteed is something that is hard for Americans to understand. We always have that little thought in the back of our mind - can I afford to get sick, will the insurance company deny the treatment I need. For some those worries are more than for others, but even with the BEST insurance policies in the US, there is always the situation where the insurance company disagrees with the doctors treatment plan.

I have known people that work for the biggest (best?) insurance companies. Their job definition was very clear, to find ways to NOT pay claims. They were in what the companies call LOSS PREVENTION. The companies consider paying the claims that you are paying them to pay as LOSS...

Loss prevention is not a position or term associated with health insurers.

[retiredguy123]

Medicare for all would allow for the powers to streamline the system to help all rather than the few. I certainly don’t want scamming in our medical referral system, but far worse than that is to eliminate an entire group based on the MONEY!!!
I think that one of the primary reasons that people cannot find common ground on this topic is that a lot of people cringe when someone says that the Federal Government is capable of "streamlining" anything.

[JimJohnson]

I think that one of the primary reasons that people cannot find common ground on this topic is that a lot of people cringe when someone says that the Federal Government is capable of "streamlining" anything.

No question about that.

We have representatives that receive money from the NRA, right or wrong gun control will not happen.

We have representatives that receive money from the pharmaceutical industry, so forget about any drug our farmers can grow being approved.

But I regress, Medicare for all is human and the Christian thing to do. Now I’m ok with calling it something else and even allowing lazy good for nothing people not being covered, but please look at a way to cover all that deserve the attention.

[Love2Swim]

So debt is not related to spending or expenses. Ahh. I get it now. :shocked:

That's great info for all you private budget managers too!

No, that is not what is being said. Of course debt is related to spending, but it is also related to income. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that if you cut taxes while also spending more money, the budget deficits get bigger.

[Taltarzac725]

No question about that.

We have representatives that receive money from the NRA, right or wrong gun control will not happen.

We have representatives that receive money from the pharmaceutical industry, so forget about any drug our farmers can grow being approved.

But I regress, Medicare for all is human and the Christian thing to do. Now I’m ok with calling it something else and even allowing lazy good for nothing people not being covered, but please look at a way to cover all that deserve the attention.

There seemed to be a story about dozens of corporate leaders demanding Congress to do something about certain guns in the wrong hands. Chief executives of 145 companies urge Senate to pass gun control laws (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/12/chief-executives-of-145-companies-urge-senate-to-pass-gun-control-laws.html)

Corporate America can make things happen with Congress.

[retiredguy123]

No question about that.

We have representatives that receive money from the NRA, right or wrong gun control will not happen.

We have representatives that receive money from the pharmaceutical industry, so forget about any drug our farmers can grow being approved.

But I regress, Medicare for all is human and the Christian thing to do. Now I’m ok with calling it something else and even allowing lazy good for nothing people not being covered, but please look at a way to cover all that deserve the attention.
That is why I suggested that the Government should provide "catastrophic" coverage for everyone. Once an individual, insurance policy, or a Government subsidy (for poor people) has paid out a set amount (maybe $5,000 per year), then all other costs are paid in full by the Federal Government. This would cover everyone and significantly reduce the cost of private insurance policies. Insurance companies would only be liable for up to the Nationally established catastrophic limit. If you could fund the catastrophic limit out-of-pocket, you wouldn't even need health insurance.

[JimJohnson]

:bigbow:That is why I suggested that the Government should provide "catastrophic" coverage for everyone. Once an individual, insurance policy, or a Government subsidy (for poor people) has paid out a set amount (maybe $5,000 per year), then all other costs are paid in full by the Federal Government. This would cover everyone and significantly reduce the cost of private insurance policies. Insurance companies would only be liable for up to the Nationally established catastrophic limit. If you could fund the catastrophic limit out-of-pocket, you wouldn't even need health insurance.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I’m sorry if I offended anyone with my true Christian remark. Its just in my opinion I see covering all medical needs for all people regardless of their financial status as a true spirit of Jesus Christ and his message too us all. I don’t know if the term Medicare for all is the way to say it or not, but when I hear, I worked for my coverage and it’s not a right, I tense up. Again, in my opinion, to even insinuate that a man with wealth should have better access to lifesaving medical attention than the poor or the old or children, that is not Christian.
I will listen if one wants to say Medicare for all, except those that are otherwise capable but refuse to contribute, fine. That is not the complaint I hear, it’s simply me with wealth and them. The them includes many that deserve our love and help. So, define the program as MEDICARE FOR ALL EXCEPT then perhaps we will have a better opportunity to be Christian

I'm not Christian, sincere or fake, and don't pretend to be. But I agree 100% with your post.

[JimJohnson]

I'm not Christian, sincere or fake, and don't pretend to be. But I agree 100% with your post.

Thank you. You make my point. You can be a Christian, an atheist, a Muslim, either political party, any race, but, if your human you must support the right for all to live regardless of your financial status. Call it what you want, but please please please support the position that every citizen is covered and without the fear of bankruptcy if you get sick, or God forbid you are not fortunate enough to have a job that would get you the required insurance.

[JimJohnson]

Have fun all, I’m headed to dinner with my lovely wife of 50 years. I appreciate that this long thread only has a few less than friendly positive comments. We can do this and still respect each other’s differences.

[jeriteri]

I assumed permission and you have received much praise already.

Thank You!

[Number 10 GI]

My wife is German born and all her family lives in Germany. Her sister manages a doctor's office. In Germany, not sure of the other European countries, if you work you are required to purchase health insurance. There are different levels of coverage you can sign up for but the higher the level of coverage the higher the premium. The cost for the insurance is not cheap. There is "free" medical care for the indigent or incapacitated, something similar to our Medicaid, but if you work there is no free medical care.
My brother-in-law's income is taxed at 50%. Half of everything he earns is taken by the government. At the end of the tax year he has to file an income tax return and pays even more money. No he is not a millionaire or even close. There is a 20% value added tax on everything you purchase. Gasoline is around $6.00 a gallon. After all the taxes he pays he still doesn't have free medical. It's amazing how some people believe that grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

[Moderator]

Have fun all, I’m headed to dinner with my lovely wife of 50 years. I appreciate that this long thread only has a few less than friendly positive comments. We can do this and still respect each other’s differences.

Well, you don't see all the posts we had to delete/remove. This is an important topic and the discussion, by and large, has been thoughtful and civil which is how/why we have been able to let it run.

Please, all of you, let's continue this as a thoughtful, civil discussion and don't get sidetracked into other hotbed political topics.

Thank you.

Moderator

[Martian]

No question about that.

We have representatives that receive money from the NRA, right or wrong gun control will not happen.

We have representatives that receive money from the pharmaceutical industry, so forget about any drug our farmers can grow being approved.

But I regress, Medicare for all is human and the Christian thing to do. Now I’m ok with calling it something else and even allowing lazy good for nothing people not being covered, but please look at a way to cover all that deserve the attention.

So, you are okay with a lazy good for nothing person giving you the plague or measles which cause your wife give birth to a child with a birth defect?

My point is many of us in this c hungry have this thing of not wanting a single cent of our hard earned money going to someone that "doesn't deserve it" ... this can often lead to cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[Polar Bear]

You seem to infer that Medicaid is the cause of the debt, which of course, it is not. The debt has increased in the last two years due to the lack of corporate tax income...
So debt is not related to spending or expenses...
No, that is not what is being said...
Do you even read your own posts? That’s exactly what your post says.

[ColdNoMore]

Affordable health care/coverage should be a 'RIGHT' for EVERY American man, woman and child...period. :ho:

[Polar Bear]

Affordable health care/coverage should be a 'RIGHT' for EVERY American man, woman and child...
Personally, I think most of the disagreement in this thread is not necessarily disagreement with that statement.

The disagreement is about how to accomplish something resembling that goal.

[ColdNoMore]

Personally, I think most of the disagreement in this thread is not necessarily disagreement with that statement.Personally, I will have to disagree.

Reading all of the posts in this thread, it is obvious that there are a number of people who DON'T believe ALL American citizens...should have access to affordable health care/treatment.



The disagreement is about how to accomplish something resembling that goal.

I have given the answer to that numerous times...but I'll do it once again.

ALL it takes is to prioritize American citizen's lives and health...over a lot of other things we spend our tax dollars on.

Pretty simple really.

[Polar Bear]

...I have given the answer to that numerous times...
In your not-so-humble opinion.
...Pretty simple really...
No. It’s not.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Personally, I will have to disagree.

Reading all of the posts in this thread, it is obvious that there are a number of people who DON'T believe ALL American citizens...should have access to affordable health care/treatment.





I have given the answer to that numerous times...but I'll do it once again.

ALL it takes is to prioritize American citizen's lives and health...over a lot of other things we spend our tax dollars on.

Pretty simple really.

Simple, but not easy. Getting an entire nation to change its mindset is a herculean task. It is exactly why we have this problem in the first place. They can't get over the word "socialism" because of all the baggage it comes with. They think "socialized medicine" is equal to "damn red commie bastiges". Ignorance is not bliss. It's ugly, and dangerous. But it's pervasive in this country and why we as a nation can't have nice things.

[graciegirl]

I agree with almost nothing in your post. But this sentence made me spit my Klondike Bar out!!

Ain't it just so.

All people have the right to own a Chevrolet. And see the U.S.A.

There are those who cannot do for themselves and they are our responsibility but don't let the talkers try to fix it for the rest of us.

[Topspinmo]

When comparing health care systems of various countries, we need to look at what seems, at first, to be unrelated spending. That is, defense spending. Look at the tax rates in the countries that have been cited: Canada, Netherlands, Sweeden. Virtually no military spending, so their near-confiscatory tax rates can support universal health care. If the US were to eliminate military spending, or drastically cut such spending, and then adopt the same near-confiscatory tax rates, we could afford universal health care. I'm not at all convinced that going that route would be advisable. I can't imagine any other country coming to our defense.

That’s because somebody else doing there dirty work, so the they don’t have to spend on military.

[Polar Bear]

I'll refrain from reciprocating on the attempted personal attack...

And yes...the solution really IS that simple...
Claiming an obvious opinion as fact is near the peak of being not-so-humble. There was no attempted personal attack...just a statement of fact.

It’s that simple.

[mtdjed]

The fact that someone says affordable health care should be a right, doesn't make that a right. It may a desire, but no government law has been enacted to grant that right. At best the government provides some health care that is covered by laws that provide some limited health care as defined by law and paid for by users. We can then supplement that limited health care by buying additional coverage that we can afford .

A statement of solutions that will not happen are not solutions. We used to call this brain storming and encouraged all participants to come up with answers even though they were not the right answer. The hope was to uncover some kernals that could be used to find a suitable solution. Here on TOTV we are not charged to solve this problem and obviously have not.

[Martian]

The fact that someone says affordable health care should be a right, doesn't make that a right. It may a desire, but no government law has been enacted to grant that right. At best the government provides some health care that is covered by laws that provide some limited health care as defined by law and paid for by users. We can then supplement that limited health care by buying additional coverage that we can afford .

A statement of solutions that will not happen are not solutions. We used to call this brain storming and encouraged all participants to come up with answers even though they were not the right answer. The hope was to uncover some kernals that could be used to find a suitable solution. Here on TOTV we are not charged to solve this problem and obviously have not.

I am one that is calling for healthcare to b e a right, and understand that implies the government formalizes it as such. It is easy to dismiss as something that won't happen, but I expect women getting the vote was a common joke in mens clubs not very long ago.

[biker1]

If you really want to talk about the facts here they are:

- The largest percentage of the Federal budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsides (26%).
- Almost 60% of the Federal budget goes to the above plus SS and safety net programs.
- The rest of the budget is pretty hard to touch. For example, Defense is 15%, benefits for federal retirees and veterans is 8%, servicing the debt is 7%, and all other domestic programs are 12%.

Health Care is certainly the top priority by dollars spent. The only other things that you can say that are also facts are that Health Care has not been socialized and, as with almost everything in life in both the US and the rest of the world, the more money you have (individually) the better the health care. That is unlikely to change (that is an opinion). I believe the best attempt at socializing healthcare was during Obama's first term when the democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House and they still couldn't do a single payer plan. That is probably a fact but I haven't examined our entire political history to determine if those conditions existed before when there was also interest in radically changing the health care system.


Fer cripes sake, it becomes really frustrating when folks have lost (or never had) the ability...to actually distinguish between opinions and facts! :oops:

That there is a finite amount of money to work with = FACT!

Since there is a finite amount of money, one needs to prioritize how to spend it = FACT!

That this nation has chosen NOT to prioritize the health coverage/care for all of its fellow citizens, over spending a large portion of that finite amount of money on other things = FACT!

Whether one thinks this is the correct prioritization, or has different ideas of how to divvy up that finite amount of money = OPINION.

It IS that simple = FACT.

You're welcome. :ho:

[stan the man]

One thing that has bothered me for years is the fact that the AMA Has limited the amount of doctors that graduate every year. Everybody screamed competition competition will lower the cost of everything from airplane flights to buying widgets. I think it is a big Foss that only a certain few select people from either A certain ethnicity Or an affluent family get accepted to med school every year this is baloney. I'm quite sure in this country there are many qualified students who could become doctors and do a fabulous job. We have enough English majors and people who graduate and going to social services in this country. We could mass-produce doctors the same way we mass-produce lawyers. Some of these nurse practitioners are as qualified as many of the doctors practicing today. So let's start with controlling the health cost at its source. That's enough I'll only go on and on most people will not agree with me that's your prerogative.

[Martian]

One thing that has bothered me for years is the fact that the AMA Has limited the amount of doctors that graduate every year. Everybody screamed competition competition will lower the cost of everything from airplane flights to buying widgets. I think it is a big Foss that only a certain few select people from either A certain ethnicity Or an affluent family get accepted to med school every year this is baloney. I'm quite sure in this country there are many qualified students who could become doctors and do a fabulous job. We have enough English majors and people who graduate and going to social services in this country. We could mass-produce doctors the same way we mass-produce lawyers. Some of these nurse practitioners are as qualified as many of the doctors practicing today. So let's start with controlling the health cost at its source. That's enough I'll only go on and on most people will not agree with me that's your prerogative.

The problem isn't so much producing more doctors, but making it a viable career path. A doctor comes out of school with a mountain of debt, and very little earning ability. A few "get rich", most work themselves to death trying to pay the bills, pay the staff, pay the student loan, pay the insurance, etc.

Many (most?) leave private gate practice and go with a group where they have lower expenses, but a huge work load and little satisfaction.

[Carla B]

Affordable health care/coverage should be a 'RIGHT' for EVERY American man, woman and child...period. :ho:

Yes, if everyone in their own minds viewed healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the mechanisms to accomplish at least basic healthcare for all would be easier to work on.

[Aces4]

People are really missing the target when it comes to evaluating healthcare costs. The elephant in the room is the rise in costs after the healthcare sector went public. How many of you own some type of healthcare stock? For every service or product provided, the cost has to be padded significantly to feed the stockholders who provide nothing.

The healthcare sector in the market took a big hit when the talk of Medicare for All started his spring. How did we, as Americans, allow the “something for nothing” stock market into the healthcare for all of us? The only profit required in medical care should be strictly for education, maintenance, development and employment of top notch medical personnel.

Someone sitting on their sofa making money off the medical issues of fellow citizens is revolting to me. There are plenty of other “something for nothing “ stocks in which to invest.

Medical healthcare should not be a public stock ever.

[biker1]

So, companies that develop and manufacture medical instrumentation do not have a right to make a profit and reward the stock holders who put their money at risk? Really?

People are really missing the target when it comes to evaluating healthcare costs. The elephant in the room is the rise in costs after the healthcare sector went public. How many of you own some type of healthcare stock? For every service or product provided, the cost has to be padded significantly to feed the stockholders who provide nothing.

The healthcare sector in the market took a big hit when the talk of Medicare for All started his spring. How did we, as Americans, allow the “something for nothing” stock market into the healthcare for all of us? The only profit required in medical care should be strictly for education, maintenance, development and employment of top notch medical personnel.

Someone sitting on their sofa making money off the medical issues of fellow citizens is revolting to me. There are plenty of other “something for nothing “ stocks in which to invest.

Medical healthcare should not be a public stock ever.

[retiredguy123]

People are really missing the target when it comes to evaluating healthcare costs. The elephant in the room is the rise in costs after the healthcare sector went public. How many of you own some type of healthcare stock? For every service or product provided, the cost has to be padded significantly to feed the stockholders who provide nothing.

The healthcare sector in the market took a big hit when the talk of Medicare for All started his spring. How did we, as Americans, allow the “something for nothing” stock market into the healthcare for all of us? The only profit required in medical care should be strictly for education, maintenance, development and employment of top notch medical personnel.

Someone sitting on their sofa making money off the medical issues of fellow citizens is revolting to me. There are plenty of other “something for nothing “ stocks in which to invest.

Medical healthcare should not be a public stock ever.
"For profit" companies competing for business brings the cost of everything down, not up. This applies to all products and services, not just health care. Remember the 800 dollar hammer that the Government bought? Today, you can buy one at Walmart for less than 4 dollars.

[Aces4]

So, companies that develop and manufacture medical instrumentation do not have a right to make a profit and reward the stock holders who put their money at risk? Really?

“Put your money at risk in healthcare sector”, oxymoron. The only risk is if Medicare for All is implemented. Those healthcare stocks are swinging high, if you follow the market at all. I listed where the profits can be manifested. Of course, the company and any employees are entitled to a reasonable profit and you know that wasn’t what was being said.

Stockholders out on the golf course, fishing on their boat, traveling through Europe, etc. are a sad group when you realize their ill-gotten gains are from the backs of citizens in health and financial crisis or misery. I have no problem with your WalMart profits or those profits made from anything other than basic health which we should all be able to enjoy. We will be judged on that some day.

Do you realize that companies making the instruments you cite can produce the same without you? But their CEO’s and boards wouldn’t be making $5 million and more a year.

[retiredguy123]

It is a fact that Obama had a filibuster proof majority for approximately 72 days during his first term. The Democrats didn't have it when he first took office - Al Franken wasn't sworn in until July due to a recount battle, and Ted Kennedy was too ill to participate. 72 days is a pretty short time period given the typical time constraints in American politics and the obstructionism Democrats were facing from the opposite party. Frankly, I'm amazed they could get the Affordable Care Act passed at all, albeit with many compromises. I personally like working with what we have, make it better, and give people a public option if they choose. It would cost far less, and the money that we have wasted giving corporations little needed tax cuts (Amazon pays zero tax!) could pay for it if we got rid of the corporate giveaways.
The ACA requires all employers with more than 50 employees to provide affordable health insurance for their employees. How would a public option fit into that requirement? I suspect that, if you take away the employer requirement, then employers would cancel the insurance and require their employees to sign up for the public option, thereby taking away the "option".

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The ACA requires all employers with more than 50 employees to provide affordable health insurance for their employees. How would a public option fit into that requirement? I suspect that, if you take away the employer requirement, then employers would cancel the insurance and require their employees to sign up for the public option, thereby taking away the "option".

They only have to offer it. And that is only for full-time permanent employees. Part timers and seasonal employees aren't entitled to any health insurance.

[Chi-Town]

I like the ACA. it has filled some gaps and protects those with pre existing conditions. Not perfect but way better than nothing.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[skyking]

One thing that has bothered me for years is the fact that the AMA Has limited the amount of doctors that graduate every year. Everybody screamed competition competition will lower the cost of everything from airplane flights to buying widgets. I think it is a big Foss that only a certain few select people from either A certain ethnicity Or an affluent family get accepted to med school every year this is baloney. I'm quite sure in this country there are many qualified students who could become doctors and do a fabulous job. We have enough English majors and people who graduate and going to social services in this country. We could mass-produce doctors the same way we mass-produce lawyers. Some of these nurse practitioners are as qualified as many of the doctors practicing today. So let's start with controlling the health cost at its source. That's enough I'll only go on and on most people will not agree with me that's your prerogative.

The AMA limits the number of doctors who graduate? Who knew? But not true.