Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

MEDICARE FOR ALL AND OTHER SUBJECTS

Our general elections are coming in 2020  and there are many issues that we need to really think and get as much knowledge that we can.

Medicare for all.

We need to understand this benefit as it is  today. We all  contribute to this benefit most of our working life. and at least for 40 quarters. We also have to reach the age of 65  inorder to be able to obtain this benefit.

If we accept Medicare for all. How is this benefit going to merge with all the citizens and how any of this will impact Medicare.

I think for example. a father with a wife and children.  the only worker is the husband and he is require to put part of his salary for Medicare. Does that include his wife and children?

If not. How are we going to deal with anything like that?

I truly believe that a National Health Care system tailored to the USA needs is what we should study and implement in this contry but even before we do any of this, we need to do price control on the drugs by the Pharmaceuticals otherwise this system what we cant to call Medicare for All cannot survive.

There are many things that need to happen before we blindly endorse  Medicare for All and think about how is going to be implemented and how it will happen.

Now for another subject.

The border. I heard yesterday on NPR  an interview with a lady from Honduras that is seeking asylum. this is the case.
She came here with her two daughters, one an adult of 18 years old. and herself and a minor daughter.

The 18 years old did not qualified for asylum. the Mother is still at the hearings  process. this is what she claims the reason for wanting asylum,.

She is afraid of violence because she is black and has HIV . she claims discrimination.

My question to  you all, 
Is the fact that she is black and is HIV positive a reason to admit a person and provide asylum?
I would like to see answers to this question and please reasonable responses, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue this is our  present laws and how they are implemented. Remember that anyone can come into the US and claim asylum that is not the question. the question is the reasons that we need to consider in order to provide asylum. 

no name
0 Kudos
414 Views
46
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.


"Medicare for All" is a term, a name. No, it is not "dishonest" ............... Read HR 676.

 

Actually,  it's "dishonest" to say that 47% does not pay into Medicare.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.


"Medicare for All" is a term, a name. No, it is not "dishonest" ............... Read HR 676.

Yes, a term, a dishonest term since it does not describe the realities of Medicare as currently described. Medicare requires paying in.

 

Actually,  it's "dishonest" to say that 47% does not pay into Medicare.

I did not say that. I look forward to your apology upon your rereading of my words.


 

0 Kudos
302 Views
20
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.


"Medicare for All" is a term, a name. No, it is not "dishonest" ............... Read HR 676.

Yes, a term, a dishonest term since it does not describe the realities of Medicare as currently described. Medicare requires paying in.

 

Actually,  it's "dishonest" to say that 47% does not pay into Medicare.

I did not say that. I look forward to your apology upon your rereading of my words.


 


Read the bill, then comment. (what a concept) Medicare for all would be paid for by "paying in".

 

Actually, you did say it    "@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population.

 

OOPS ............. I guess you are the one that owes an apology.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.


"Medicare for All" is a term, a name. No, it is not "dishonest" ............... Read HR 676.

Yes, a term, a dishonest term since it does not describe the realities of Medicare as currently described. Medicare requires paying in.

 

Actually,  it's "dishonest" to say that 47% does not pay into Medicare.

I did not say that. I look forward to your apology upon your rereading of my words.


 


Read the bill, then comment. (what a concept) Medicare for all would be paid for by "paying in".

 

Actually, you did say it    "@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population.

 

OOPS ............. I guess you are the one that owes an apology.


47% does not pay federal income tax - a true statement and the opposite of "paying in". If you then extend to how tax money is spent you arrive at the phrase that bothers you. Now, is it not a true statement? Hence not what you labeled "dishonest".

 

Now, do you want to continue this silliness or can we get back to the real world in which one collects Medicare only after they paid into it. The so called "Medicare for all" is not like that.

Honored Social Butterfly

Well rk9152 , why don't you write to the bills authors and tell them you don't like it's name ?

Wait until they come up with " Pensions For ALL "

0 Kudos
394 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

Well rk9152 , why don't you write to the bills authors and tell them you don't like it's name ?

Wait until they come up with " Pensions For ALL "


They don't need to hear from me. I'm sure they know that they used the fraudulent name as a "sales gimmick".

0 Kudos
375 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

Now, do you want to continue this silliness or can we get back to the real world in which one collects Medicare only after they paid into it. The so called "Medicare for all" is not like that.


Looks like Medicare for all will work a little differently than just plain Medicare, eh? Kind of like how Democratic Socialist is different than just plain Socialist. 

 

The right would not be as worked up about the name if there were any substantive arguments against the program itself.  Their problem is that it is providing better health care at lower costs in so many other countries. Tough to argue with success so you get picky about the name. 

0 Kudos
395 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Now, do you want to continue this silliness or can we get back to the real world in which one collects Medicare only after they paid into it. The so called "Medicare for all" is not like that.


Looks like Medicare for all will work a little differently than just plain Medicare, eh? Kind of like how Democratic Socialist is different than just plain Socialist. 

 

The right would not be as worked up about the name if there were any substantive arguments against the program itself.  Their problem is that it is providing better health care at lower costs in so many other countries. Tough to argue with success so you get picky about the name. 


You have to pay into it to get it is not a little different.

 

It applies to seniors is not a little different.

 

As to other than the fraud that the name is being used to sell it, this "right" objects to it from the perspective of not wanting the government running healthcare. 

 

Look at the posts about plutocrats and kleptocrats and the rest of the things lobbyists are called running up the cost of things and the high cost of government because of them - and you want 16% of the economy subject to their machinations?

 

And there is the VA - yes, some get great service but remember all the bad service, double book keeping for bonuses.

 

I was a fed for many years and trust me, the free, competitive marketplace is a better deal.

0 Kudos
377 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I have read the 10 page summary and will print out that summary,  There are many things that I find that I cannot support in that bill. 
It sounded to me in many of the parts that I read that there were not going to be able to be implemented. and other issues   that now, I will mention paragraph by paragraph of the things that I don't like or care about.

The bill sounds to me like a fairy tale of good things happening. I need a lot more than that. Ifought Sarah Palin when she started the Death Panels. and I will fight for the things that I consider that are not good In this bill.

no name
0 Kudos
271 Views
13
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Medicare for all sounds like if it ever occurs will be healthcare for none (think VA)! More good doctors will opt out and become concierge doctors for more money and those that stay in the plan will have patients with long wait times and poor service.

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Medicare for all sounds like if it ever occurs will be healthcare for none (think VA)! More good doctors will opt out and become concierge doctors for more money and those that stay in the plan will have patients with long wait times and poor service.


If we adopt a single payer heath care plan, doctors can't "opt out" except for cash patients. I have Medicare and an advantage plan. Average wait time, almost all things are covered, no problems and no one refuses it. Sounds like your excuses are just that ............ excuses, and erroneous ones at that.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Medicare for all sounds like if it ever occurs will be healthcare for none (think VA)! More good doctors will opt out and become concierge doctors for more money and those that stay in the plan will have patients with long wait times and poor service.


If we adopt a single payer heath care plan, doctors can't "opt out" except for cash patients. I have Medicare and an advantage plan. Average wait time, almost all things are covered, no problems and no one refuses it. Sounds like your excuses are just that ............ excuses, and erroneous ones at that.


They always have the option to opt out taking cash instead of Medicare for all. At present, I also have Medicare (Original + Secondary PPO) and you do realize that doctors accept less (from Medicare patients) than those paying cash and BTW, not everyone has Medicare. With everyone having Medicare, you can bet on long lines, poor service, poor medical care, and wishing for change back to the old system.

0 Kudos
357 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

 



If we adopt a single payer heath care plan, doctors can't "opt out" except for cash patients. I have Medicare and an advantage plan. Average wait time, almost all things are covered, no problems and no one refuses it. Sounds like your excuses are just that ............ excuses, and erroneous ones at that.


I have always been a proponent of a National Health care system mainly because you have the opition to get insurance coverage for items that you want coverage and or cover more of the items that are covered in the national plan. But in this Medicare for all you can't do that, they prohibit insurances to provide duplicate coverage of  benefits. there is a whole to read on that section that I personally don't  feel comfortable with. I sugges that you read the Medicare for All plan.

no name
0 Kudos
296 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 



If we adopt a single payer heath care plan, doctors can't "opt out" except for cash patients. I have Medicare and an advantage plan. Average wait time, almost all things are covered, no problems and no one refuses it. Sounds like your excuses are just that ............ excuses, and erroneous ones at that.


I have always been a proponent of a National Health care system mainly because you have the opition to get insurance coverage for items that you want coverage and or cover more of the items that are covered in the national plan. But in this Medicare for all you can't do that, they prohibit insurances to provide duplicate coverage of  benefits. there is a whole to read on that section that I personally don't  feel comfortable with. I sugges that you read the Medicare for All plan.


I have read the entire plan, the entire Bill.  You seem to keep ignoring the fact that this Bill will not be passed as is. It is a suggested plan and many things can be changed in the Bill. Why do you not acknowledge that? No Bill is ever written and passed without amendments, it's part of the process of law making. People that support going to a single payer national health care plan should contact their Senators and Representatives and make known what they want included in the plan. Simply saying I don't like this and I don't like that on a chat site accomplishes nothing.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
292 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Medicare for all sounds like if it ever occurs will be healthcare for none (think VA)! More good doctors will opt out and become concierge doctors for more money and those that stay in the plan will have patients with long wait times and poor service.


My question is whether you think Americans are too stupid to simply copy a program which has been wildly successful in so many other countries OR do you think the Republicans will sabotage the program? 

 

I can't think of any other reason it would not work in America as it does the rest of the developed world. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Medicare for all sounds like if it ever occurs will be healthcare for none (think VA)! More good doctors will opt out and become concierge doctors for more money and those that stay in the plan will have patients with long wait times and poor service.


My question is whether you think Americans are too stupid to simply copy a program which has been wildly successful in so many other countries OR do you think the Republicans will sabotage the program? 

 

I can't think of any other reason it would not work in America as it does the rest of the developed world. 


Why don't you ask some of those people that come here from Canada for an MRI that takes days to schedule here and 3-6 months in Canada. If you like poor medical service, why not go to the place of your choice?

Honored Social Butterfly

Republicans were just fine needlessly spending Trillions (5.9 Trillion according to Cost of War) , immorally invading Iraq. God forbid they provide Medical Coverage to keep it's Citizens Healthy and Alive.

Republicans will never go for any form of Universal Health Care for All , because it may cost the Insanely Wealthy a little bit more in Taxes.

 

0 Kudos
275 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

Republicans were just fine needlessly spending Trillions (5.9 Trillion according to Cost of War) , immorally invading Iraq. God forbid they provide Medical Coverage to keep it's Citizens Healthy and Alive.

Republicans will never go for any form of Universal Health Care for All , because it may cost the Insanely Wealthy a little bit more in Taxes.

 


I am sure that we can blame the Republicans all you want .but at this time, I am concerned with this Medicare for All program that I can see has many issues that I do not feel comfortable with. I suggest that you read the bill and then have an opinion on what will be implemented and how is it going to affect you personally.

no name
0 Kudos
284 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Sorry rker321, but there are not enough Moderate Republicans in the Senate to get any form of Universal Healthcare passed , regardless of any tweaks to this plan.

 

It was the great Teddy Roosevelt , who carried a writing in his chest pocket that read " Progressive Cause Greater Than Any Individual ". That writing is said to have helped save his life , when he was shot during an assassination attempt.

 

We need a Progressive Republican like Teddy Roosevelt to straighten out today's GOP and White House.

0 Kudos
447 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

Sorry rker321, but there are not enough Moderate Republicans in the Senate to get any form of Universal Healthcare passed , regardless of any tweaks to this plan.

We need a Progressive Republican like Teddy Roosevelt to straighten out today's GOP and White House.


Or we simply need to get more progressive Democrats in office and give the Democrats the majority in the House and Senate. Say no to Republicans.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

For starters,  not one word as to the individual  cost or family cost in all the 10 pages.  so. what happens to a father with wife and kids when he is the sole wage earner?  how is his family going to be covered, what happens in case of a divorce and that woman has no work history? 

Will continue to bring up issues that I will name by  Titles that I can see that I don't care for them at all.

no name
0 Kudos
287 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

For starters,  not one word as to the individual  cost or family cost in all the 10 pages.  so. what happens to a father with wife and kids when he is the sole wage earner?  how is his family going to be covered, what happens in case of a divorce and that woman has no work history? 

Will continue to bring up issues that I will name by  Titles that I can see that I don't care for them at all.


Why in the world don't you go find the entire Bill and read it? It will answer your questions. Also, you fail to understand that HR 676 is just one suggested national health care plan. America can copy the things hat are so successful in other countries and incorporate it into a plan for America. In fact, those things can be amended into the HR 676 Bill.

 

Call it a fantasy. Long ago it was considered a fantasy that the Earth was round, or more recently that we would ever have Medicare of Social Security. 


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
303 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.


Considering the thought that went into your post, easy to see why you're a Republican. Medicare is paid for by everyone with a job, according to lil donny that excludes 4%, not 47% that Republican bosses don't pay enough to have to pay federal income tax.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, "Medicare for all" is a dishonest term since it is basically only available to those who paid in - a government funded program is not paid into by 47% of the population. Secondly, Medicare has age requirements - the system being advocated for does not.


Considering the thought that went into your post, easy to see why you're a Republican. Medicare is paid for by everyone with a job, according to lil donny that excludes 4%, not 47% that Republican bosses don't pay enough to have to pay federal income tax.


I propose a three step process:

1. Read my words (above);

2. Read your words (above); 

3. See if you can find any connection. (hint: lil donnie is not a factor)

0 Kudos
349 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly



Oooops!!

0 Kudos
359 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

What will the Democrats ask for next ? Mostly Tax Payer Funded Pensions w/ Cost of Living Increases and Lifetime Medical for all hard working Americans , oh that's right , thats only for the privileged Gov't workers , but that's not Socialism !!

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

 

What will the Democrats ask for next ? Mostly Tax Payer Funded Pensions w/ Cost of Living Increases and Lifetime Medical for all hard working Americans , oh that's right , thats only for the privileged Gov't workers , but that's not Socialism !!


Those retirees that have health care and other benefits as part of their retirement package probably planned for retirement through their career choice.  Brings to mind the Aesop fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant.

0 Kudos
345 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Tex says "Those retirees that have health care and other benefits as part of their retirement package probably planned for retirement through their career choice. "

------------------------

There are only so many Gov't jobs with Lifetime Pensions and Lifetime Medical. Planning has nothing to do with that fact. Those who were lucky enough to have those few jobs are just that , while 90% of Americans never had that luxury. Be thankful you were one of the minority , but don't criticize the many who never had a shot and blame their Poor Planning.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png