Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
272
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

272 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
272
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
285
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

285 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
285
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
288
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

288 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
288
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
296
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

296 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
296
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
304
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

304 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
304
Views
Info Seeker
0
Kudos
335
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

335 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
335
Views
Info Seeker
0
Kudos
336
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

336 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
336
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
831
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

831 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
831
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
839
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

839 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
839
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
849
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

849 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
849
Views