The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Wait what?
What’s wrong with Medicare for all?
What’s wrong with Medicare for all?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary
Honest question because I don't know...
Does "Medicare for all" mean universal single payer health care? If not, what does it mean?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It means you don't have to be 65 or have ALS to apply for medicare
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.
Last edited:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Twit is an under-used and underrated insult. I approve.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Turn that hyper sensitive find any fault eye toward private insurance and get back to me, ya twit
Turn your desire for an argument somewhere else. If you don’t like a statement of fact that’s your problem. Not mine.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Well, earlier in this thread a few posters were complaining about medicare as socialism. Which my response to that is, “what’s wrong with medicare health care?”
I’m not talking about the UK’s socialized health care system where most hospitals and clinics are owned by the government. (Which again, what’s wrong with that?)
I’m talking about Canada’s form of health care where the country pools taxes into one health insurance (Medicare) which then pays for private doctors, practices, and clinics. Which essentially functions as our medicare system, except it’s for everyone rather than just the old. What’s wrong with that?
Both the UK’s system (which is true socialized medicine) and Canada’s spends less than we do, provides better outcomes for patients, and covers everyone. Yeah yeah yeah, non-emergency operations might have longer waiting periods, but so what? At least you’ll get the operation without facing bankruptcy. Can’t we invest in health care to lower waiting periods? Isn’t the fact that no country is rushing from socialized health care to our dysfunctional form an obvious sign that our form sucks?
Why should your health care depend on your ability to work and get and maintain insurance? Why should this burden be placed solely on workers and employers? Why should employers determine your health care? Why should insurance adjusters be able to determine what they will and will not cover when you’re sick? Why should big pharm be able to jack up medicine prices 1000+ percent without the government having the ability to regulate and set prices so sick people aren’t left out in the cold? Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world to permit its population to: (a) go without health care (b) lose its savings and file for bankruptcy because they get sick?
I just don’t understand why people think socialized medicine is bad. We socialize other necessities, like police, fire, security, and education. Why not health care?
Is this another one of those issues like climate change where one side is going to completely ignore scientists and mountains of evidence because they don’t want to admit that they’re wrong?
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
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.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
That's what I was on about, not you and alts spat. If you want to see where the money will come from take a look at European taxation. The rich will pay more, sure, but so will those of us "promised" in the form of lowered benefits/higher taxes. I dont expect much return from my 15.3% tax.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
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
Last edited:
Zombie
Well-Known Member
LOL man, is it really a mystery to you how a magazine photo shoot works?
As for the rest of it, obviously we wouldn't need to spend the trillions of dollars we currently do for private and employer provided health insurance.
She says where the money will come from...
Why can't you hear it?
Instead of paying insurance premiums, and your employer paying more than you do, your out of pocket expenses for copay and all that, all that money is MORE than 38 trillion. All that would go away. It has been shown by a Republican estimate that medicare for all would cost less than our current system. That's where the money comes from. It costs less than what we have now. That's where the ****ing money comes from.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
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.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
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.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
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?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure she mentions that it will cost less than what we have now.
That's essentially where the money comes from.
But there are political realities to the specifics of how the money currently going into the system via employers and insurance premiums will go into the system via payments to the government.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
My hell... are we still refuting basic myths about health care?
We have the least efficient and most expensive health care system in the developed world by a long shot. It’s because of our ridiculous privatized system, not lack of one. If we want to become more efficient then we desperately need more “socialism.”
Time and time again single payer systems prove that that they work by:
a) providing universal coverage
b) lower overall costs to both patients and country.
c) being the only moral way to deliver health care to the masses. Why should Americans die or become bankrupt for lack of health care coverage? How can we live with ourselves knowing that the rich and healthy receive the best care while those in need of health care the most don’t receive it?
It’s time to wake up. “Socialized medicine” isn’t a bad thing. For most of us, it would be a godsend.
We have the least efficient and most expensive health care system in the developed world by a long shot. It’s because of our ridiculous privatized system, not lack of one. If we want to become more efficient then we desperately need more “socialism.”
Time and time again single payer systems prove that that they work by:
a) providing universal coverage
b) lower overall costs to both patients and country.
c) being the only moral way to deliver health care to the masses. Why should Americans die or become bankrupt for lack of health care coverage? How can we live with ourselves knowing that the rich and healthy receive the best care while those in need of health care the most don’t receive it?
It’s time to wake up. “Socialized medicine” isn’t a bad thing. For most of us, it would be a godsend.
Last edited: