Are you as smart as a high-tech car? Take this quiz and test your knowledge.
Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
605
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

605 Views
Message 11 of 56

rk9152 wrote:

The RWNJs constant blather about "dependance" and "loss of Freedom" is beyond absurd.

 

Only for those who do not want to consider reality and prefer to live in a "they will take care of me" world.

 

BEING "DEPENDANT" ON SOMETHING HAS NO EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE IF YOU CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THAT SOMETHING.

 

Ah, but when the pols and bureaucrats can change anything they want any time they want you get a case of, "You better vote for me - the other guy will take it away from you".

 

Sound familiar???? Look at all the scare tactics on these boards about anyone thinking of changing SS - does that not show dependency?


You totally missed the point - the FACT no politician can survive if they vote to trash SS or Medicare means those programs CANNOT be taken away from us. WE the People control those benefits of being an American.

 

On the other hand, anytime a small handful (about 100) Wall Street traders decides to tank the economy, the economy tanks. In fact, it's not even 100 these days, its a dozen whose firms have the high speed trading algorythms they call "derivatives" that can destroy all YOUR lifetime savings in a heartbeat, just like they did in 1929 and again in 2006.

 

Republicans spread the oily lie that somehow turning your life over to unelected billionaires whose names you never learn and who you definately will never meet is superior to having our elected Government look out for our interests.. The fact their sheeple buy that absurdity is a sad tribute to the effectiveness of their Ministry of Probaganda, FAUX and Hate Radio.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
605
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
596
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

596 Views
Message 12 of 56

When discussing Universal single payer, I fail to see why Medicare is part of the discussion. It works great, and if the folks UNDER 65 can all get medical coverage, us Seniors will be much better off because prices will move back toward less than half of what we now pay. How do I know? Because that's what's happening in every other industrialized country on earth. If there's ever a need to "adjust" Medicare, it should be limited to placing a "copay" on people with exceptionally high retirement incomes - say +$250K.

 

In figuring what the reasonable replacement for our current disaster would cost, there is no reason to include things we already pay for - Medicaid, CHIP, Tricare, employer paid coverage - because the money is ALREADY THERE.

 

If you look at what we actually spent for health care and deduct the funding already available, you come up with about $1.3Trillion that needs a "new" funding source.

 

That would come out of the $14.7Trillion personal income Americans report, so a tax of less than 10% will cover everyone for everything we now receive, and the HUGE reductions in overhead for the providers will more than accomodate the additional folks receiving services. For all those who now HAVE health care coverage, the "new" cost could well be "negative" because they (and their employer) are currently paying MORE than 10% of income.

 

All the Republican rants about how Universal coverage is "something we cannot afford" for America are invited to explain how wasting $4 TRILLION on jrbush's war for oil and glory was something we could afford while we cut taxes for the Uberrich.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
596
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
607
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

607 Views
Message 13 of 56

The RWNJs constant blather about "dependance" and "loss of Freedom" is beyond absurd.

 

Only for those who do not want to consider reality and prefer to live in a "they will take care of me" world.

 

BEING "DEPENDANT" ON SOMETHING HAS NO EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE IF YOU CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THAT SOMETHING.

 

Ah, but when the pols and bureaucrats can change anything they want any time they want you get a case of, "You better vote for me - the other guy will take it away from you".

 

Sound familiar???? Look at all the scare tactics on these boards about anyone thinking of changing SS - does that not show dependency?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
607
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
601
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

601 Views
Message 14 of 56

scout wrote: "On which Planet does Universal, single payer health care involve individuals dealing with government bureaucracies?"

 

The planet on which "single payer" means "the government".

 

Chas wrote: "You really need to get of of the Extreme Right Wing Mantra about 'dependency'."

 

If the truth is an Extreme Right Wing Mantra then why would everyone not want to be part of the Extreme Right Wing - unless, of course, they prefer living in la-la land?

 

Personalizing issue has no effect of it's veracity. Who is and is not dependent on what bureaucratic program does not change the reality of the dependency.

 

With your, "If a person saves for retirement, after they retire are they "dependent" on those savings?" thought you show your inability to distinguish between "earned" and "entitled by the mere fact of my existence". 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
601
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
613
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

613 Views
Message 15 of 56

GailL1 wrote:

runner50 wrote:

And without that "system," NO insurance company in their right minds would come out to insure decrepit, sickly, feeble, disease-prone, full of preexisting conditions, seniors. No PROFIT in that.

 

We seniors are all very lucky, indeed.......Woman Wink


  runner50,

 

Why do you think that many seniors are now choosing the Medicare Advantage way to recieve their benefit ? 

 

Even though the ACA has reduced somewhat the various insurance company's benchmark for beneficiary reimbursement, the bonus payment (star-rating) system seems to still make it very lucrative for insurance companies to participate in the Medicare Advantage program; sometimes even giving additional services.

 

The only insurers (and perhaps beneficiaries)  who seem to have suffered are the ones in more rural areas where the network premise is very hard to pull together. 

 

Some big insurers have said earlier this year that they have thusfar lost money on ACA exchange plans and thus the Administration is having to make a few changes to assure them that they can know who is to be their customers in a time, specified manner - but yet they LOVE the Medicare Advantage part of their business and wish to expand it more by acquisitions and mergers.

 

Evidently beneficiaries that sign up to receive their Medicare benefits via a Medicare Advantage plan like them cause the numbers keep growing in sign ups - think more than 30% now get their benefits this way.


 

 

 

I have a Medicare Advantage plan with Florida Blue and all is well. It was well before the ACA. It is well now. For me, NOTHING has changed. In fact, ALL my MD'S are still there. 

 

BUT I'm still in favor or Medicare-for-all. I want ALL WORKING FOLKS who are struggling to have health care. Not to have to wait till they are OLD to have it. Members of Congress have SUBSIDIZED health care regardless of age. Rubio and Cruz get their coverage with OBAMACARE. Lawmakers don't have to wait. They call it "socialism" for everyone else but not for themselves. 

 

I contend that average MIDDLE CLASS folks do LOTS more VIABLE WORK than lawmakers do. ALL should have health care. Like them, like we OLD folks with "one foot in the grave." EVERYONE...........and it should NOT have a "profit motive." PROFIT should be taken out of the equation when the health........and LIFE.....of folks is present.

 

When Mitch McConnell had his SUBSIDIZED heart bypass to keep his ugly butt alive, profit wasn't an issue. When Cheney got his SUBSIDIZED heart TRANSPLANT, profit wasn't an issue. If I needed those procedures, or you needed them, or our loved ones needed them, likewise, PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.

 

If we had a universal single payer system that was TOTALLY fair, profit wouldn't be an issue for ANYONE.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
613
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
595
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

595 Views
Message 16 of 56

ChasKy53 wrote

If a person saves for retirement, after they retire are they "dependent" on those savings?  Having a national health care plan and paying taxes to have it ......... is that "dependency"? 

___________________________________

 

Yes, I think if a person pays or saves for something during their working years, whether that is done directly by them or via some government program (taxes), they can very well use it when the time is right, i.e. after they retire.

 

Traditional Medicare has no "need basis" to the regular program.  If you have paid into the system during your working years, or even if you haven't as in the case of a spouse (who has never worked) of a qualified beneficiary, everybody gets the same thing and at the same contribution level - 2.9% of their earned income. 

 

But if for some reason, you don't contribute during your working years, like a person who has no "earned" income - you don't qualify unless you BUY into the program.

 

This is not always the plan within the political realm where many would like these entitlement programs of SS and Medicare to be redesigned to be:

(1) confiscated from ALL income

(2) dished out on a redistribution methods or

(3) based on an "income related need basis"

 

So that is basically what I don't trust about any government program - and what I am leary about with a single payer healthcare coverage system.  When things get tight, and we know they will sooner or later,  they will want more and more from those that can or they will make cuts to those that can.

 

These so-called single payer systems that we have now certainly aren't anything to write home about as to their success.

 

I see how the system works now as far as health care cost.  We are a country that hates to say "No' even when something is not completely proven as best practices.  We have organizations that lobby for various coverage - I see some really big ones coming down the pike, real fast.

The cost of caring for those with Alzheimers.

Mental health, especially addiction, treatment, follow up and care.

Autism care and treatment - inside and outside the medical realm.

 

At the same time, we want to have healthcare but we want what we want or we go along with a doc that is prescribing something that is far above what other care may cost.

 

KHN 03/08/2016 Report Details Senior Health Care That Misses The Mark

 

Hey, we seem to have a hard time even dictating that seniors in Traditional Medicare have a "gatekeeper"( a primary care physician that must make referrals for a service to be covered) - both Democrats and Republicans have made this suggestion, so has MedPAC, so has the President.  It is also a good idea medically speaking for the senior.

 

Under a single payer health care system, there are controls and budgets which may take presidence over what is covered (best practices), with the emphasis placed on BEST and that measure has a dollar value into the measure.

 

Sorry - I'm off on a tangent - better stop and start my day over.

Again have at it !

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
595
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
544
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

544 Views
Message 17 of 56

The RWNJs constant blather about "dependance" and "loss of Freedom" is beyond absurd.

 

BEING "DEPENDANT" ON SOMETHING HAS NO EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE IF YOU CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THAT SOMETHING.

 

We are "dependant" on oxygen. So far, Republicans have not figured out how to "meter it" so that dependancy has absolutily NO IMPACT on our lives.

 

It's the same with every other benefit of living in a modern society we have decided to give ourselves without a direct fee - everything from Public Education to driving on the InterState where GOPers have not installed toll booths.

 

Before you swallow the Republican koolade on this, ask yourself: If there IS a loss of "freedom" from having Univesal health care, free education K thru PhD/MD and shorter workweeks, why are all those Europeans so happy with their Governments that they never elect one that will "remove their chains" and restore the GOPerNotion of "Freedom"?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
544
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
481
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

481 Views
Message 18 of 56

rk9152 wrote:

runner50 wrote:

I guarantee you, NONE of these right wing seniors will reject their Medicare, Social Security or ANYTHING. Without those things, they would have NOTHING......especially regarding MEDICAL. And they know it.

 

It's easy to holler about "socialism" when all your MEDICAL is covered and guaranteed......Woman Indifferent


That is a true statement for two very good reasons - first, they have been paying in to the system because they were required to and now want the supposed "benefits". Secondly, the system has created a dependency. Without those programs there is little left to the average person.

 

Considering that reality, it hardly seems a basis for, "Now let's do more and make more people dependent on the government bureaucracies".


Without these programs there is little left to the average person? You really need to get of of the Extreme Right Wing Mantra about "dependency".  What are you dependent on? Your retirement? Are  you "dependent" on it? What health insurance do you have? Are you "dependent" on it? If a person saves for retirement, after they retire are they "dependent" on those savings?  Having a national health care plan and paying taxes to have it ......... is that "dependency"?  Your "dependency" thingy is nothing but an extreme right wing talking point.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
481
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
487
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

487 Views
Message 19 of 56

rk9152 wrote:

runner50 wrote:

I guarantee you, NONE of these right wing seniors will reject their Medicare, Social Security or ANYTHING. Without those things, they would have NOTHING......especially regarding MEDICAL. And they know it.

 

It's easy to holler about "socialism" when all your MEDICAL is covered and guaranteed......Woman Indifferent


That is a true statement for two very good reasons - first, they have been paying in to the system because they were required to and now want the supposed "benefits". Secondly, the system has created a dependency. Without those programs there is little left to the average person.

 

Considering that reality, it hardly seems a basis for, "Now let's do more and make more people dependent on the government bureaucracies".


On which Planet does Universal, single payer health care involve individuals dealing with government bureaucracies?

 

You only become "dependant" on something when it can be taken away. Otherwise its just another benefit of being an American, like access to most of the Interstate - the part Republicans haven't yet privatized.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
487
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
489
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD COST LESS

489 Views
Message 20 of 56

GailL1 wrote:

@rb88283943

WHO is telling you this?  And where is the analysis of how this could possibly be true.

Provide it and I will read and analysize it. 

 

Remember Vermont tried to go to a single payer system UNTIL they found out how much it would cost and they thought they might just run employers out of the state.


That's why nobody else does it "below" the National level.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
489
Views