2020 Presidential election
- Thread starter gandalfe
- Start date
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)
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
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.
Taking all the big ideologies, capitalism, communism, socialism...and applying them all in nuanced ways to create a whole often leads to better over all policies than going whole hog on one ideology.
JazzyFresh
Banned
If your first two paragraphs were true why must we substantially raise taxes? Particularly the rich who will be paying 50+%?
JazzyFresh
Banned
I can't argue with that.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The answer to the first question is obvious if you take a couple seconds to think about it.
As for the second, it's not necessarily the case that the richest among us must have their taxes increased substantially more than the rest of us to pay for this program. That is probably borne out of Sanders belief that our current tax system isn't progressive enough. But that's a separate issue.