The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Wait what?
What’s wrong with Medicare for all?
What’s wrong with Medicare for all?
Honest question because I don't know...Wait what?
What’s wrong with Medicare for all?
Honest question because I don't know...
Does "Medicare for all" mean universal single payer health care? If not, what does it mean?
Lol
Reduce chapter 11 Bankruptcy by an *** ton
Reduce the amount we all pay
Nope cuz some people will pay more than others(even though it is still cheaper for them too)
Srsly noone is forced to apply for medicare and yet they still do despite IRMAA, cuz it is still cheaper.
What an awful argumemt
Twit is an under-used and underrated insult. I approve.It wasn’t an argument ya twit. It was a statement of conditional fact.
It wasn’t an argument ya twit. It was a statement of conditional fact.
Also, you’re right. You’re not forced to apply for Medicare. But many are automatically enrolled. And of you don’t take it originally you get penalized for taking it later. Certain exclusions apply of course.
Then there is the whole State Buy In programs for Medicaid recipients.
Turn that hyper sensitive find any fault eye toward private insurance and get back to me, ya twit
Honest question because I don't know...
Does "Medicare for all" mean universal single payer health care? If not, what does it mean?
A lot of people are gonna meet IRMAA if Medicare for all passes.
This is ****ed. I already expect and plan on being in the bracket in retirement that gets reduced benefits because I "did the right thing" by working more and spending less than I make. The money is going to have to come from somewhere and it's most likely from people like me.
Disincentivising people this way will not turn out well for society. People will have even less incentive to save and invest in income producing assets, which means the wealth concentration will continue, which means more whining from those who don't and further entrenchment of the problem.
The IRMAA tables start with those who do well for themselves. Not the super rich. This is far below them. It starts at 85k from 2 years prior to the current year. Exclusions apply.
Again, in case alt is once again to dim to see, this is fact. Not pro or con.
Maybe the other 38 trillion dollars she can't account for will come from the bling blingers who conducted her photoshoot who happened to conveniently have close to $4000 worth of clothes that fit her like a glove?
Hehepeepeecaca
Maybe the other 38 trillion dollars she can't account for will come from the bling blingers who conducted her photoshoot who happened to conveniently have close to $4000 worth of clothes that fit her like a glove?
Hehepeepeecaca
LOL man, is it really a mystery to you how a magazine photo shoot works?
I'm certainly not an expert on it.
Tell me, is it common for magazines companies who are going under, being sued by employees for unpaid wages and not giving customers refunds to buy an outfitted suit worth $3500 for a photoshoot? If so, please see their track record.
I don't really care if she bought it or the magazine company did. I just think it's funny.
When pressed on it twice, I heard her say, "We do know and acknowledge that there are political realities," she added. "They don't always happen with the wave of a wand, but we can work to make these things happen."She says where the money will come from...
Why can't you hear it?
Right, you don't care about whether you are making an uninformed *** out of yourself, so long as you 'own the libs.'
FWIW Clothes by big name fashion designers are given/loaned by the clothing companies for the purposes of photo shoots.
I'm pretty sure she mentions that it will cost less than what we have now.When pressed on it twice, I heard her say, "We do know and acknowledge that there are political realities," she added. "They don't always happen with the wave of a wand, but we can work to make these things happen."
What time in the video does she answer for the 38 trillion?