[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

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]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

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.

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

[JimJohnson]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Martian

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]

Originally Posted by JimJohnson

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]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

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

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]

Originally Posted by JimJohnson

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

Corporate America can make things happen with Congress.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by JimJohnson

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]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[JimJohnson]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

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]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.