Get the vision care news and information you need in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
249
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

249 Views
Message 71 of 126

Why go to Medicare for all?

It will eradicate all state and federal Medicaid spending. That spending is the largest part of our state spending.

The federal and state taxes used to fund Medicaid would be terminated.

It will eliminate uninsured.

It will force everyone to pay for health insurance. That everyone means everyone including our bottom. It meas NO EXCEPTIONS.

It will cut the cost of health insurance for those that "pay for it" right now by 50%.

 

Note: I know most of us on the Right are against it because other people won't be forced to pay for theirs.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
249
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
231
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

231 Views
Message 72 of 126
They ask "Do you support Medicare For All if it gives the Government too much control over health care?" when the real question is "Do you support Government controlling what providers receive for services just as they do now with Medicare?" @scout.......question for you......How many of the providers do you think will stop operating their "business" and when they do and services are slow, lean and non-existent what do you think will happen? I know some doctors who are packing it up already.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
231
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
231
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

231 Views
Message 73 of 126

RK:   NOPE!!!!!

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
0
Kudos
231
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
238
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

238 Views
Message 74 of 126

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Let's clarify - you want "Medicare for all". Does that mean everyone has to pay into it? That is the way Medicare works. How would you deal with those unable to pay into it?

 

I have Medicare - I also have (and pay for) a supplement because it is necessary - how do you on the left want to handle that?


To be clear, Sanders is just talking about single payer health care system. He like to call it "medicare for all" because people understand Medicare and it provides so much health care in this country.  We liberals are well aware TANSTAAFL. I would suggest we look at Canada, Europe, and the other countries who have covered their entire populations at less cost and better outcomes to see how best to structure payment. 


I think we are in agreement. When pols call for "Medicare for all" they are lying - what they really want is "Medicaid for all". And even that is a lie because Medicaid starts at 65, they want something beginning at birth.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
238
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
249
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

249 Views
Message 75 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

The "something for nothing party" are the ones advocating taxation of the people who own 80% of the nation's wealth where the "party which cannot govern" is giving them tax breaks. 

 

I would point out that last year America spent $3.2T on health care. Times ten an you have a similar number but without everyone being covered. Why would you pay the same price to cover fewer people? Conservatives, just can't understand the math.  Or read, apparently. 


But a lot of it - the government is paying is adding to the debt,Nemo right now it really isn't being paid for - 75% of Medicare Part B comes from the General Fund, Medicare HI fund is in trouble financially too, same for Medicaid - from state and Federal Coffers, same with CHIP and IHC.  States keep trying to hold down their cost too.  I guess the same thing could be said for FEHB and retiree coverage.  States would probably like some relief from their employee coverage too.

 

Just add it ALL in to those who will be paying the tax for it - whomever that might be.

 

So how would that work?  Would those who would be taxed - whomever the are - also pick up all of these type things too?

 

Seems like just a lots of switching around of who pays what.  Take it from this pocket and give it to another pocket - All that has to be added into the cost - and the sharing of that cost.

 

Actually the proposed plan adds in other benefits that some don't have like dental and vision - maybe more - but they pulled LTC from it, wonder why?

 

If Democrats were really serious about fixing Health care, they would come up with a plan to start reducing some cost similar to how other countries do - They would figure out how we could get people access in some areas and how to eliminate surplus providers in other areas.

 

They need to see if providers are willing to take less money.

They need to develop a drug approval process that includes the price of the medicine for a total efficacy determination.

They need to set an upward price tag on orphan drugs based on the number of people it can help.  

 

That' and more to control cost needs to be done 1st, if not we will just keep paying more and more and more, at least those who will be paying, for the same old system with subpar results in many cases.

 

All this legislation proposal is now is a bottomless cost pit. That's where we,get into trouble.   Democrats need to put their efforts towards working down healthcare cost for everybody before asking Americans to pay for it for everybody in tax dollars.  

 

I don't want to pay for somebody's knee replacement when they are morbidly obese which cuts down the odds of success tremendously.  Cause then, we would just have to pay for it all over again.

 

How much should we pay for an orphan drug that may help 100 people in the whole country?  

 

How owe long should we keep granny  or anybody else on life support when there is zero change of even a small recovery?

 

Why not give me the right to determine my demise in advance when certain quality of life indicators are the measure ?

 

Yea, when you get into a national healthcare plan - there has to be more rules that save valuable cost bucks.  And some of those determinations will open up other cans of worms -

 

Just some thoughts

 

 


Why does everything have to be fixed before anything can be done? Is it worse fixing the problem in increments than doing nothing and letting the problem continue to fester?

 

When you go to the doctor for an infection do you refuse all treatment since she isn’t able to cure it immediately?

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
249
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
255
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

255 Views
Message 76 of 126

I have Medicare - I also have (and pay for) a supplement because it is necessary - how do you on the left want to handle that?

 

I too, have the Medicare plus supplement. I know people who worry about the monthly payments and go with a Medicare Advantage Plan. I know of one person who is doing without.

 

Australia Medicare:

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
255
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
270
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

270 Views
Message 77 of 126

@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

The "something for nothing party" are the ones advocating taxation of the people who own 80% of the nation's wealth where the "party which cannot govern" is giving them tax breaks. 

 

I would point out that last year America spent $3.2T on health care. Times ten an you have a similar number but without everyone being covered. Why would you pay the same price to cover fewer people? Conservatives, just can't understand the math.  Or read, apparently. 


But a lot of it - the government is paying is adding to the debt,Nemo right now it really isn't being paid for - 75% of Medicare Part B comes from the General Fund, Medicare HI fund is in trouble financially too, same for Medicaid - from state and Federal Coffers, same with CHIP and IHC.  States keep trying to hold down their cost too.  I guess the same thing could be said for FEHB and retiree coverage.  States would probably like some relief from their employee coverage too.

 

Just add it ALL in to those who will be paying the tax for it - whomever that might be.

 

So how would that work?  Would those who would be taxed - whomever the are - also pick up all of these type things too?

 

Seems like just a lots of switching around of who pays what.  Take it from this pocket and give it to another pocket - All that has to be added into the cost - and the sharing of that cost.

 

Actually the proposed plan adds in other benefits that some don't have like dental and vision - maybe more - but they pulled LTC from it, wonder why?

 

If Democrats were really serious about fixing Health care, they would come up with a plan to start reducing some cost similar to how other countries do - They would figure out how we could get people access in some areas and how to eliminate surplus providers in other areas.

 

They need to see if providers are willing to take less money.

They need to develop a drug approval process that includes the price of the medicine for a total efficacy determination.

They need to set an upward price tag on orphan drugs based on the number of people it can help.  

 

That' and more to control cost needs to be done 1st, if not we will just keep paying more and more and more, at least those who will be paying, for the same old system with subpar results in many cases.

 

All this legislation proposal is now is a bottomless cost pit. That's where we,get into trouble.   Democrats need to put their efforts towards working down healthcare cost for everybody before asking Americans to pay for it for everybody in tax dollars.  

 

I don't want to pay for somebody's knee replacement when they are morbidly obese which cuts down the odds of success tremendously.  Cause then, we would just have to pay for it all over again.

 

How much should we pay for an orphan drug that may help 100 people in the whole country?  

 

How owe long should we keep granny  or anybody else on life support when there is zero change of even a small recovery?

 

Why not give me the right to determine my demise in advance when certain quality of life indicators are the measure ?

 

Yea, when you get into a national healthcare plan - there has to be more rules that save valuable cost bucks.  And some of those determinations will open up other cans of worms -

 

Just some thoughts

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
270
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
262
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

262 Views
Message 78 of 126

@rk9152 wrote:

Let's clarify - you want "Medicare for all". Does that mean everyone has to pay into it? That is the way Medicare works. How would you deal with those unable to pay into it?

 

I have Medicare - I also have (and pay for) a supplement because it is necessary - how do you on the left want to handle that?


To be clear, Sanders is just talking about single payer health care system. He like to call it "medicare for all" because people understand Medicare and it provides so much health care in this country.  We liberals are well aware TANSTAAFL. I would suggest we look at Canada, Europe, and the other countries who have covered their entire populations at less cost and better outcomes to see how best to structure payment. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
262
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
261
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

261 Views
Message 79 of 126

Let's clarify - you want "Medicare for all". Does that mean everyone has to pay into it? That is the way Medicare works. How would you deal with those unable to pay into it?

 

I have Medicare - I also have (and pay for) a supplement because it is necessary - how do you on the left want to handle that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
261
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
263
Views

Re: New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW

263 Views
Message 80 of 126

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

The "something for nothing party" now wants Medicare for all. They think that doubling all the taxes will cover it (except for those who don't pay tax). Oh yes, we will need a carbon tax and a national sales tax to cover it all, but the "something for nothing party" wants it, so we should have it. What's next? Free college, free housing, free food, free cars, and of course a guaranteed income from the "government".

 

Can we just become part of Venezuela?


The "something for nothing party" are the ones advocating taxation of the people who own 80% of the nation's wealth where the "party which cannot govern" is giving them tax breaks. 

 

I would point out that last year America spent $3.2T on health care. Times ten an you have a similar number but without everyone being covered. Why would you pay the same price to cover fewer people? Conservatives, just can't understand the math.  Or read, apparently. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
263
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors