Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
223
Views

223 Views
Message 1 of 36

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@gordyfl wrote:

The merits of Universal Health Care aren't the issue for me and many others.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course not. We've got Medicare. We like Medicare. The nerve of young people wanting Medicare, too. Let them wait until they're 65 like we did. If they don't like it, they can move to any of the many countries that provide healthcare for all its people. 

 

Joe Biden: "And so, the younger generation now tells me how tough things are — give me a break!.

No no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break."


Medicare originally was a plan presented that was meant for all Americans, this was the idea at it's conception. Congress decided to put it into place only for those 65 and older. WE would be much better off today if we had adopted it for everyone then.


Congress in their weird moment of wisdom decided this because they realized that savings would be all the working years until age 65 and then monthly payments would be made by the recipient.  If all got it, the debt would grow and grow since the "savings part" did not grow for some 40-45 years before collection. That is why the "Medicare for All" will never fly.  You have some teenager collecting from it before putting any money in, resulting in seniors getting nothing.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
223
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
244
Views

244 Views
Message 2 of 36

We've only talked about Medicare for All. However, please note that Bernie has a wide array of plans which will expand the size of the federal budget and increase taxes. Donald Trump would love to run against Bernie.

 

Bernie's plans include:

  • Medicare for All 
  • Green New Deal
  • Housing for All
  • Cancel Student Debt
  • Universal Childcare
  • College for All
  • Expanding Social Security
  • Cancel Medical Debt
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
244
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
270
Views

270 Views
Message 3 of 36

Chasky referred to the Ivy League studes of MFA. Just because they came from Yale or Harvard doesn't make them accurate. The studies made several assumptions about health care costs and there are many who disagree with their assumptions. Here's one analysis of those studies. 

 

Sanders was once again asked how he would pay for the plan. He responded by citing a study "that just came out of Yale University, published in Lancet magazine, one of the prestigious medical journals in the world." The study, co-written by a former unpaid Sanders adviser, purports to show that Sanders' Medicare for All plan would save $450 billion a year, and 68,000 lives. 

 

A detailed article produced by Kaiser Health News and Politifact, however, rates Sanders' claim "mostly false." The true part is that such a study exists. The false rating comes from the story's conclusion that the Lancet study's major findings are wildly disingenuous because they ignore or discount much of the evidence about what effects such a program would have on the health care system.

 

The Lancet study assumes, for example, that the Sanders plan could pay Medicare rates across the board. Medicare rates are far lower than private insurance rates, and the hospital lobby is a powerful political force that has successfully fought off payment reductions in multiple venues. When Washington state set up a government-run health insurance plan, state lawmakers ended up boosting rates to about 170 percent of what Medicare pays. 

 

The Lancet study Sanders cites also lowballs the likely increase in utilization that would come from eliminating co-payments and other cost-sharing mechanisms, as Sanders' Medicare for All plan calls for. Although it allows that the newly insured would use more care, it assumes that the currently insured would not seek to use more health services. As Harvard health policy researcher Adrianna McIntyre points out, that's deeply unrealistic. 

 

Beyond the clear evidence from health policy research, it is worth thinking about this claim if it were in reverse: Supporters of Sanders' Medicare for All plan sometimes portray copayments, premiums, and other forms of cost-sharing as obstacles to accessing health care services, which is presumably why the Sanders plan eliminates them. If adding cost-sharing to a health care system would reduce access, and thus reduce utilization, then  removing cost-sharing would produce the opposite effect in the form of increased utilization, and thus increased spending. 

 

There are other problems as well, most notably that the study simply doesn't account for about $4 trillion in expected long-term care spending that would be part of the bill under Sanders' Medicare for All plan. 


There is always that ONE study. Experts dismiss it, but the candidate can ride it all season. 
Right now, it is the Yale study supporting BernieCare.

The study claiming M4A would lower national health spending, that:
1) Forgot to score the $4T long-term care provisions.
2) Forgot to account for utilization increases from ending cost-sharing.
3) Assumed it can root out waste while eviscerating the categories that police waste.

And as McIntyre also points out, the study handwaves away research suggesting that its headline "lives saved" figure is substantially overstated. The authors pull a favorable number from a single 2009 study, note the existence of some other research that would result in a much lower number of saved lives, and then call their own number "highly conservative."

 

One might argue that this is only one study. And Sanders made the case last night that there's a large body of evidence to support his contention that his plan would save money, indeed, he claimed that there is no dispute whatsoever about this conclusion. "What every study out there, conservative or progressive says, Medicare for All will save money," he said. 

In this case, Sanders' claim is not mostly false. It is flatly untrue. 

 

study by the left-leaning Urban Institute, for example, found that total health care spending in the U.S. would increase by $7 trillion over a decade under a Medicare for All-like single-payer plan, even making allowances for savings from lower prices and administrative costs.

 

Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner points to several other studies undercutting Sanders' claim as well.

 

https://reason.com/2020/02/26/bernie-sanders-new-favorite-medicare-for-all-study-has-major-problems/

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
270
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
283
Views

283 Views
Message 4 of 36

Chasky wrote, "Oh but yes Gruffstuff did say that. Here is copied straight from the posting that you replied to and if you don't believe that go back and look:"

 

Go back and check, you're wrong, Gruffstuff wrote that AFTER I replied to her post. Therefore, when I replied, I had no idea she was referring to that part of Kasparov's article.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
283
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
303
Views

303 Views
Message 5 of 36

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Chasky said, "Gruffstuff also said "Instead of comparing Sanders to Stalin.".   So what about that part?"

 

Gruffstuff never said that. If she would have directly said that, I would have addressed it. And I never compared Sanders with Stalin, so please don't say that. 

 


Oh but yes Gruffstuff did say that. Here is copied straight from the posting that you replied to and if you don't believe that go back and look:

 

Then why don't you just say that?

 

Instead of comparing Sanders to Stalin.

 

You cherry-picked the first sentence and left the last out.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
303
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
321
Views

321 Views
Message 6 of 36

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Gruffstuff, we're talking about MFA almost doubling the sise of the federal budget,


As I stated before, Yale's and Harvard's independent studies both agreed that MFA would not "double the size of the federal budget", but would save  hundreds of billions yearly.  Funny that those who oppose Medicare for All never reference to those studies.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
321
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
324
Views

324 Views
Message 7 of 36

@gordyfl wrote:

The merits of Universal Health Care aren't the issue for me and many others.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course not. We've got Medicare. We like Medicare. The nerve of young people wanting Medicare, too. Let them wait until they're 65 like we did. If they don't like it, they can move to any of the many countries that provide healthcare for all its people. 

 

Joe Biden: "And so, the younger generation now tells me how tough things are — give me a break!.

No no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break."


Medicare originally was a plan presented that was meant for all Americans, this was the idea at it's conception. Congress decided to put it into place only for those 65 and older. WE would be much better off today if we had adopted it for everyone then.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
324
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
325
Views

325 Views
Message 8 of 36

Chasky said, "Gruffstuff also said "Instead of comparing Sanders to Stalin.".   So what about that part?"

 

Gruffstuff never said that. If she would have directly said that, I would have addressed it. And I never compared Sanders with Stalin, so please don't say that. 

 

I was repeating the arguments of Garry Kasparov, many of which I liked. However, it doesn't mean I agreed with everything he said in his article. That's the picture of Bernie, which will be painted by the Republicans. But since you asked, let me address this again, as I did in another post. 

 

I'm talking about perception, not reality. I'm talking about the blue collar voters in the all important battleground states of Mich. PA, Ohio, Wisc and FL, where the election will be decided. The following is what will almost certainly happen if Bernie gets the nomination. 

 

In 2016, whenever Hillary's name was mentioned during the campaign, the words "Private Email Server" always accompanied her name. That probably cost her the election. If Bernie gets the nomination, every time his name is mentioned, you will hear the word "Socialist".

 

What do blue collars really hear when the word "socialist" is mentioned? They hear the word communist and they will never vote for a communist. They would much rather hold their nose and vote for Trump.

 

November 2020 is the election of our lifetime. We have a clear choice between preserving our democracy and the values we cherish, or going with 4 more years of Trump and probably watching our country turn into a dictatorship. Why would any intelligent person take the risk of nominating someone who will be perceived as a communist, which would enhance the chances of Donald Trump getting re-elected?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
325
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
339
Views

339 Views
Message 9 of 36

@CriticalThinking wrote:

I like Biden's strategy much better. He wants to improve the flaws in Obamacare and add a Public Option (which is what Obama originally wanted). I think the Public Option is the best solution.

 

Gruffstuff asked, "Then why don't you just say that?"

 

I'm confused. Didn't I just say that above?


Gruffstuff also said "Instead of comparing Sanders to Stalin.".   So what about that part?


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
339
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
341
Views

341 Views
Message 10 of 36

@gruffstuff wrote:

I like Biden's strategy much better. He wants to improve the flaws in Obamacare and add a Public Option (which is what Obama originally wanted). I think the Public Option is the best solution.

 

Then why don't you just say that?

 

Instead of comparing Sanders to Stalin.


Thank you very much. Some Biden supporters like to denigrate Sanders in the same ways that tRump supporters denigrate anyone criticizing tRump. It's just not necessary and lacks class.

 


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
341
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

September is Emergency Preparedness month.

Do you have an emergency plan in place?

Share or ask questions today.

Emergency preparedness kit

Top Authors