Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
267
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

267 Views
Message 1 of 56

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Are you saying we need to design a new organization from the ground up rather than take advantage of the skills, processes, and systems which already exist in HHS?  Seems awfully wasteful.  


I am saying that what you want is not Medicare for the reasons stated above.


But....providing the same services to people under 65 and those not having worked 10 years would be the "for All" part of "Medicare-for-All".  It is no longer "Medicare". It is "Medicare for All". 


No, that would be closer to Medicaid. Medicare recipients have paid for the coverage they get.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
267
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
280
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

280 Views
Message 2 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

Are you saying we need to design a new organization from the ground up rather than take advantage of the skills, processes, and systems which already exist in HHS?  Seems awfully wasteful.  


I am saying that what you want is not Medicare for the reasons stated above.


But....providing the same services to people under 65 and those not having worked 10 years would be the "for All" part of "Medicare-for-All".  It is no longer "Medicare". It is "Medicare for All". 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
280
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
283
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

283 Views
Message 3 of 56

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@cf1856 wrote:

Medicare to be for ALL is being adopted by the Democratic Party. Seniors will ultimately lose priority for medical dollars. That’s how the government saves money. You don’t need to be an expert to see what has happened in England. Single payer is not the same as Universal care - both of which cover the population. Single payer is unfair to Seniors. 


You're right - the concept is a fraud. It is a matter of the left trying to latch on to an existing, successful program as a vehicle for something entirely different.

 

Example - Medicare is available at 65, will the "new Medicare"?

Example - Medicare is available only to those who paid in to it, will the new "Medicare?


Are you saying we need to design a new organization from the ground up rather than take advantage of the skills, processes, and systems which already exist in HHS?  Seems awfully wasteful.  


I am saying that what you want is not Medicare for the reasons stated above.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
283
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
291
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

291 Views
Message 4 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

@cf1856 wrote:

Medicare to be for ALL is being adopted by the Democratic Party. Seniors will ultimately lose priority for medical dollars. That’s how the government saves money. You don’t need to be an expert to see what has happened in England. Single payer is not the same as Universal care - both of which cover the population. Single payer is unfair to Seniors. 


You're right - the concept is a fraud. It is a matter of the left trying to latch on to an existing, successful program as a vehicle for something entirely different.

 

Example - Medicare is available at 65, will the "new Medicare"?

Example - Medicare is available only to those who paid in to it, will the new "Medicare?


Are you saying we need to design a new organization from the ground up rather than take advantage of the skills, processes, and systems which already exist in HHS?  Seems awfully wasteful.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
291
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
299
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

299 Views
Message 5 of 56

@cf1856 wrote:

Medicare to be for ALL is being adopted by the Democratic Party. Seniors will ultimately lose priority for medical dollars. That’s how the government saves money. You don’t need to be an expert to see what has happened in England. Single payer is not the same as Universal care - both of which cover the population. Single payer is unfair to Seniors. 


You're right - the concept is a fraud. It is a matter of the left trying to latch on to an existing, successful program as a vehicle for something entirely different.

 

Example - Medicare is available at 65, will the "new Medicare"?

Example - Medicare is available only to those who paid in to it, will the new "Medicare?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
299
Views
Info Seeker
0
Kudos
330
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

330 Views
Message 6 of 56

Medicare to be for ALL is being adopted by the Democratic Party. Seniors will ultimately lose priority for medical dollars. That’s how the government saves money. You don’t need to be an expert to see what has happened in England. Single payer is not the same as Universal care - both of which cover the population. Single payer is unfair to Seniors. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
330
Views
Info Seeker
0
Kudos
331
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

331 Views
Message 7 of 56

Medicare to be for ALL is being adopted by the Democratic Party. Seniors will ultimately lose priority for medical dollars. That’s how they save money. You don’t need to be an expert to see what has happened in England. Single payer is not the same as Universal care - both of which cover the population. Single payer is unfair to Seniors. Also if you need to dip into your IRA to pay for things, it will put you into a higher income bracket and likely require higher premiums and copays.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
331
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
826
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

826 Views
Message 8 of 56

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

scout wrote: "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".

 

No, that makes the point. As you show, pols have bought our votes by creating a situation in which we are dependent on their continued providing for our necessities.


Total rejection of reality. jrbush TRIED to dismantle SS and backed off faster than a cat on a hot stove when We the People realized what the twit was up to. We don't elect people because they promise to let us keep what we already have, we reject them if they try and take it away, NOT if they agree to keep it. If it was rejection in order to keep SS, no GOPer would ever get elected because the destruction of SS has been a goal of Republicans since it was created.


Not really. I think that Bush43 (I assume that is who you meant by "jrbush") proposed a partial privatization of SS which had possibilities. But he did "chicken out" when the "nothing can ever change except screw the successful and give to the failures" crowd stated their case.

 

The words "destruction of SS" are really a falsehood since that was never the proposal - improve it was really (and still is) the point.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
826
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
834
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

834 Views
Message 9 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

scout wrote: "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".

 

No, that makes the point. As you show, pols have bought our votes by creating a situation in which we are dependent on their continued providing for our necessities.


Total rejection of reality. jrbush TRIED to dismantle SS and backed off faster than a cat on a hot stove when We the People realized what the twit was up to. We don't elect people because they promise to let us keep what we already have, we reject them if they try and take it away, NOT if they agree to keep it. If it was rejection in order to keep SS, no GOPer would ever get elected because the destruction of SS has been a goal of Republicans since it was created.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
834
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
844
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

844 Views
Message 10 of 56

scout wrote: "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".

 

No, that makes the point. As you show, pols have bought our votes by creating a situation in which we are dependent on their continued providing for our necessities.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
844
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors