Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
768
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

768 Views
Message 51 of 56

Medicare for all and nobody has to pay. I been paying into medicare for 51 years and now it`s going to be free. Scotty -Beam me up!   We are 19 trillion dollars in debt ,which 6 1/2 trillion  is owned by foreign countries . Do any liberals here see a problem with this?  What is the breaking point when it all collapses?   Just look at the free fall of the Canadian dollar and soon we will be following their path with their failed health care.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
768
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
792
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

792 Views
Message 52 of 56

    The fact is that Bernie Sanders plan for Single Payer Health Insurance has been reviewed, not by the CBO - because it is not their job to do that analysis at this particular point in time.    Although Senator Sanders has proposed similar legislation over the years, it has not been analyzed by CBO.

     There has been some "analysis" by HRC backing economists and there has been pushback by other economists both Right and Left leaning.    The point is that most economists without political affiliations agree that the sort of plan Bernie Sanders is proposing is more than sane - if just people would get over their political self.    (That was the analysis from Forbes economist - of which you can read by googling : the purple report).

 

     People whining without facts just make themselves look foolish. 

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
792
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
810
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

810 Views
Message 53 of 56

Me


@rb88283943 wrote:

 

 Rather than clueless ... I have many many hours of research and study .....



OK, I'll  take your word for it and change comment 2 to reflect your claim that you wrote comment 1 yourself.

 

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not write comment 1 and that you simply screen scraped it from a political brochure. But if you say you are purposely  trying to deceive people by referencing 25-year-old documents that do not relate at all to the current Medicaid for All proposal then you are just as bad as the people who wrote the article in the link you provided in comment 1.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
810
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
813
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

813 Views
Message 54 of 56

Name calling does not serve anyone well ..... Rather than clueless ... I have many many hours of research and study ..... while nothing is ....perfect  a PRESIDENT SANDERS is the ONLY candidate with REAL ANSWERS .... over 570 economist support his plan MANY OF THEM WORLD RENOWNED AND RESPECTED.

 

I WAS A REPUBLICAN OVER 50 YEARS ..... CHANGED 4 MONTHS AGO TO SUPPORT THEBERN,

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin Quote
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
813
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
820
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

820 Views
Message 55 of 56

 


@rb88283943 wrote:
...- a conclusion affirmed over decades by multiple analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office (bolded type was in the original rb88283943 comment)

 


In comment 3 rb88283943 claims he or she wrote comment 1 although it sure looks like just a screen scrape out of a political brochure to me. But I was intrigued by comment1's final sentence. I wondered what the CBO and GAO possibly said about this subject. I had never read anything on this subject by either organization but -- to be fair -- I have only been looking at Medicare and related issues for about 5 years since I joined Medicare.

 

Well that was my problem. It turns out the multiple CBO and GAO analyses (see Note) are 25 years old. Even more deceitfully, the CBO and GAO analyses do not analyze the Medicaid for All plan currently being proposed by one politician. What the GAO and CBO did 25 years ago -- according to the document at the link provided by rb88283943 if he or she actually did write comment 1 (I did not read the underlying documents) -- was analyze what would happen if you 

  • 1. Gave then real Medicare (not Medicaid for All as is currently proposed)  -- with United States Medicare's many unlimited co-pays and high deductibles and lifetime limits and many things not covered including drugs (most of which has not changed in 25 years) -- to everyone
  • 2. And then put a cap on national healthcare spending (including forbidding people from spending money out of their own pocket if they wanted to spend more if that meant exceeding the cap)

One of the 25-year-old or older proposals reduced all provider payments to Medicare's then rates, which then ran at about 65% of what most of us paid at the time.

 

The people who put out the lies in comment 1 need to be condemned for the deceptive devils that they are.

 

Note: Of the other "multiple analysis" in the link, with only one exception, all of the other mutliple analyses not by CBO and GAO were also 10-25 years old. That one exception is a throughly discredited -- by fellow traveller leftists -- analysis by a UMass economic historian of a 2013 variation of the current Medicaid for All proposal.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
820
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
859
Views
55
Replies

MEDICARE FOR ALL

859 Views
Message 56 of 56

 

n-SW-628x314MEDICARE FOR ALL

 

Medicare-for-all would save the American people and businesses more than $6 trillion over the next decade.

 

Despite the advances of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health care financing system continues to inflict needless suffering on our patients. Nearly 30 million Americans remain uninsured, and co-payments, deductibles and insurers' narrow networks obstruct care for many more. Insurers skim billions from premiums, and impose expensive and time-consuming paperwork on doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Studies in the most trusted journals have quantified the bureaucratic savings achievable through single payer reform. We devote 31 percent of medical spending to administration, vs. 16.7 percent in Canada - a difference of $350 billion annually. And single-payer systems in Canada, the UK and Australia all use their bargaining clout to get discounts of 50 percent from the prices drug companies charge our patients. The potential savings on bureaucracy and drugs are enough to cover the uninsured, and to upgrade coverage for all Americans - a conclusion affirmed over decades by multiple analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office.

 

 

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin Quote
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
859
Views
55
Replies