Zombie
Well-Known Member
Weird that you didn't pick up on that two pages ago.
2020 Presidential election
- Thread starter gandalfe
- Start date
JazzyFresh
Banned
Yup missed it while dealing with NAOS, my bad. Glad you agree.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Now that the far less interesting part of the debate is cleared up, I'm curious why you think M4A won't be an improvement over the system we currently "enjoy."
JazzyFresh
Banned
It mathematically makes zero sense to me economically. When our government is already 16 trillion in debt, I'm suppose to believe that adding tens of trillions more to that is a great idea? Hell with my current wages I will be paying more and I will not be able to stick with the doctors when everything is government run. Look at the VA and the failure that has become.
Look at government run things like social security a majority of us will never see. These same people that stole and mismanaged our SS are going to suddenly run a legit healthcare plan? In what flipping universe? What happens when the government runs out of our money? What happens when the rich move away to save half their income? We become Venezuela or Cuba. Money doesn't just grow on trees
I'm all for better healthcare but when the ones selling it to us have to lie about it(if you like your plan, $0 births) I'm not buying it. Financially it just doesn't make sense and many experts even on the left agree. This is going to cost tens of trillions, all while the same person is screaming free college, and 30+ trillion environment spendings.
Taxing the rich will not pay for all this. Taxing you and me to oblivion still won't imo.
If everyone is on Medicare, all Drs will take Medicare. Why couldn’t you keep them?
JazzyFresh
Banned
First question has little bearing on what I said. Do you know Canadians can’t?
Zombie
Well-Known Member
You are assuming that this program will increase the debt, why do you think this is the case? Insurance companies are highly profitable, and that's with their enormous administrative costs which would be cut down tremendously in a single payer system.
Why isn't the fear that we will become Canada or Scandinavia? Or to put it another way, why haven't their single payer systems turned them into Cuba or Venezuela?
That number sounds scary until you consider we're currently spending more than that on healthcare under our current system. So it's actually less sustainable longterm.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Canadians can but the wait times are extremely long.
As far as Obamacare why couldn't I chose my doctors when all doctors were part of ACA? You asked why I couldn't if all doctors were on Medicaid but I forsee a similar forecast. Look at the VA and ACA. It's no longer a free market. I was told which doctors to see under ACA
Zombie
Well-Known Member
You could also be told which doctors to see before ObamaCare. HMO's weren't created by ObamaCare. This could happen to anyone at any time if their employer switched insurance providers or if you switched jobs. Another problem solved by single payer.
So basically your answer is fear. You’re afraid they’ll make the same mistakes. You’re afraid they’ll do things poorly.
Under the ACA there were multitude of plans. Drs were refusing ACA coverages and were still making tons of money through traditional insurances. that’s not a possibility if we have single payer or all Drs are required to take all insurances...
JazzyFresh
Banned
A) where is the money coming from to implement all of this?
B) Canada's already waiting over a month for basic services. They have 291 million less people.
C) I dont buy it. Not all people are insured just image when every single human is insured.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Somewhat but there's also the fact that it shouldn't be my responsibility to insure every single person. I love my current plan. I have zero issues with it and don't need the government to treat me like a child and regulate me.
JazzyFresh
Banned
I'm fine with this just let me opt out of the tax hike as well. Problem with this is that no doctors would opt in to make government mandated money.
Make it so all Drs have to take all insurances. Problem solved
JazzyFresh
Banned
Sounds a little communistic but that seems to be where were heading anyways.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
It's coming from the money we are currently paying for Healthcare, along with savings via better negotiating power with providers and lower administrative costs.
The US spends $3.5 Trillion dollars per year in Healthcare costs (and growing), most of that coming out of the pockets of our employers and ourselves.
Canada has waiting lists for some things it's true, it's not for things that are life threatening, like emergency surgery or cancer treatment, but for things like hip replacements, etc. I'd argue waiting is better than not being able to afford it at all. You'll notice they aren't exactly falling all over themselves to dismantle their current system and the let free market step in to "solve the problem."
Canada's population is also far less concentrated than our own, which leads to a lot of their problems.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Do you have any idea what communism is?
(Hint- what Stoked described is not communism, like, at all)
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
We pay about 19 percent of our GDP for health care.
The next closest country is Germany, at about 12 percent.
The UK and Canada are between 8-10 percent GDP.
If we want to cut costs then a single payer system where Medicare for all or the British National Healthcare System is a now brainer.
What some posters are doing is taking a page from what republicans did in 2010 when they attempted to scare low information voters about the long-term costs of the ACA. They claimed it would cost trillions of dollars. Which was true. But what they neglected to say was the cost of the status quo, which was trillions more than the ACA.
Will Medicare for all cost trillions? Absolutely. But it’ll save money in the long-term when compared to the trillions more we’re already spending with our dysfunctional “free market” system.
The next closest country is Germany, at about 12 percent.
The UK and Canada are between 8-10 percent GDP.
If we want to cut costs then a single payer system where Medicare for all or the British National Healthcare System is a now brainer.
What some posters are doing is taking a page from what republicans did in 2010 when they attempted to scare low information voters about the long-term costs of the ACA. They claimed it would cost trillions of dollars. Which was true. But what they neglected to say was the cost of the status quo, which was trillions more than the ACA.
Will Medicare for all cost trillions? Absolutely. But it’ll save money in the long-term when compared to the trillions more we’re already spending with our dysfunctional “free market” system.