Medicare for All Question

[sk8knight]

Last night when asked about how Medicare for All would be funded, Elizabeth Warren said this: “Let me be clear on this. Costs will go up for the wealthy. They will go up for big corporations. And for middle-class families, they will go down,” Warren said when asked if her proposal would require an increase in middle class taxes. “I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families.”

At one point in time, politicians in favor or state-funded healthcare were touting the benefits to business of removing the cost of healthcare from their expenses. Warren’s answer seems to convey a thought pattern that businesses have not been paying their share and need to pay more. I’m wondering if people are going to pick up on this change and if she’ll ever be asked about the risks of increasing business costs on American businesses in a global economy.

 

[Boosted87]

Last night when asked about how Medicare for All would be funded, Elizabeth Warren said this: “Let me be clear on this. Costs will go up for the wealthy. They will go up for big corporations. And for middle-class families, they will go down,” Warren said when asked if her proposal would require an increase in middle class taxes. “I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families.”

At one point in time, politicians in favor or state-funded healthcare were touting the benefits to business of removing the cost of healthcare from their expenses. Warren’s answer seems to convey a thought pattern that businesses have not been paying their share and need to pay more. I’m wondering if people are going to pick up on this change and if she’ll ever be asked about the risks of increasing business costs on American businesses in a global economy.

Good questions and I agree she needs a better answer. I also agree that framing this around helping small businesses and entrepreneurs (not necessarily big corporations) would make talking points on the right more challenging. If I were her, I'd go with something like:

We spend 2x as much per person as the 2nd most expensive healthcare system in the world. Yet our outcomes rank near the bottom of modernized nations. France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, etc can all produce better outcomes for less money. Entrepreneurs can take risks w/o gambling on their family's health. Small and medium sized businesses aren't held captive by rising healthcare costs. But, according to Republicans, the greatest economy in the world can't afford to do what all of these other countries are already doing. And instead of discussing all of the benefits to entrepreneurs and small businesses, or discussing what happens to per-capita costs, or what happens to the actual out-of-pocket costs of an average family - they only want to talk about taxes. So yes. We'll need a tax to fund this system. The total cost of healthcare for the average American family will go down, even if their tax bill goes up. The burden of subsidizing healthcare costs will be relieved from small and medium sized businesses. Just like we pay taxes to fund police, fire departments, schools, and roads, we'll pay a tax to ensure that every American has continous access to the the healthcare services they need.​

Cue general election add that says in menacing deep voice "Elizabeth Warren wants to take away your private insurance and raise your taxes" - lol.

 

[Poolside Knight]

Good questions and I agree she needs a better answer. I also agree that framing this around helping small businesses and entrepreneurs (not necessarily big corporations) would make talking points on the right more challenging. If I were her, I'd go with something like:

We spend 2x as much per person as the 2nd most expensive healthcare system in the world. Yet our outcomes rank near the bottom of modernized nations. France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, etc can all produce better outcomes for less money. Entrepreneurs can take risks w/o gambling on their family's health. Small and medium sized businesses aren't held captive by rising healthcare costs. But, according to Republicans, the greatest economy in the world can't afford to do what all of these other countries are already doing. And instead of discussing all of the benefits to entrepreneurs and small businesses, or discussing what happens to per-capita costs, or what happens to the actual out-of-pocket costs of an average family - they only want to talk about taxes. So yes. We'll need a tax to fund this system. The total cost of healthcare for the average American family will go down, even if their tax bill goes up. The burden of subsidizing healthcare costs will be relieved from small and medium sized businesses. Just like we pay taxes to fund police, fire departments, schools, and roads, we'll pay a tax to ensure that every American has continous access to the the healthcare services they need.​

Cue general election add that says in menacing deep voice "Elizabeth Warren wants to take away your private insurance and raise your taxes" - lol.

Andrew Yang has been in politics not even a year and he has figured out the proper messaging to sell it using this angle while Bernie who has been campaigning for years hasn’t

 

[UCFKnight85]

MFA is such a slam dunk proposal that not a single far left blue state has implemented it at the State level

 

[firm_bizzle]

We all pay for Medicare right now. If it is expanded, we will pay more. Simple concept.

The people may be cool with that, but at least be honest.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Good questions and I agree she needs a better answer. I also agree that framing this around helping small businesses and entrepreneurs (not necessarily big corporations) would make talking points on the right more challenging. If I were her, I'd go with something like:

We spend 2x as much per person as the 2nd most expensive healthcare system in the world. Yet our outcomes rank near the bottom of modernized nations. France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, etc can all produce better outcomes for less money. Entrepreneurs can take risks w/o gambling on their family's health. Small and medium sized businesses aren't held captive by rising healthcare costs. But, according to Republicans, the greatest economy in the world can't afford to do what all of these other countries are already doing. And instead of discussing all of the benefits to entrepreneurs and small businesses, or discussing what happens to per-capita costs, or what happens to the actual out-of-pocket costs of an average family - they only want to talk about taxes. So yes. We'll need a tax to fund this system. The total cost of healthcare for the average American family will go down, even if their tax bill goes up. The burden of subsidizing healthcare costs will be relieved from small and medium sized businesses. Just like we pay taxes to fund police, fire departments, schools, and roads, we'll pay a tax to ensure that every American has continous access to the the healthcare services they need.​

Cue general election add that says in menacing deep voice "Elizabeth Warren wants to take away your private insurance and raise your taxes" - lol.

I pay $600/mo for my plan. Would my new Medicare tax cost more than that?

 

[AAC6800]

I just want to make sure illegals have free healthcare.......

 

[firm_bizzle]

I just want to make sure illegals have free healthcare.......

Are they paying the Medicare tax?

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Good questions and I agree she needs a better answer. I also agree that framing this around helping small businesses and entrepreneurs (not necessarily big corporations) would make talking points on the right more challenging. If I were her, I'd go with something like:

We spend 2x as much per person as the 2nd most expensive healthcare system in the world. Yet our outcomes rank near the bottom of modernized nations. France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, etc can all produce better outcomes for less money. Entrepreneurs can take risks w/o gambling on their family's health. Small and medium sized businesses aren't held captive by rising healthcare costs. But, according to Republicans, the greatest economy in the world can't afford to do what all of these other countries are already doing. And instead of discussing all of the benefits to entrepreneurs and small businesses, or discussing what happens to per-capita costs, or what happens to the actual out-of-pocket costs of an average family - they only want to talk about taxes. So yes. We'll need a tax to fund this system. The total cost of healthcare for the average American family will go down, even if their tax bill goes up. The burden of subsidizing healthcare costs will be relieved from small and medium sized businesses. Just like we pay taxes to fund police, fire departments, schools, and roads, we'll pay a tax to ensure that every American has continous access to the the healthcare services they need.​

Cue general election add that says in menacing deep voice "Elizabeth Warren wants to take away your private insurance and raise your taxes" - lol.

Do businesses really enjoy shopping for health care for their employees?

 

[Nautiknight]

My 21 year old son who is severely disabled due to contracting meningitis at 24 days old back in 1998. Kyle is blind, has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and is mentally retarded. I have been accessing specialists for two decades. My son has had 4 major surgeries including cutting edge selective dorsal rhizotomy surgery in St. Louis back in 2002.

I want zero part of any government run "free" healthcare . The fact is MFA will result in rationing and disabled kids and adults will get the short end of the stick because paying for heart surgery for a 40 year old normal adult will make more dollars and cents than say paying for the same surgery with a person with a half of a brain and is disabled.

The surgery my son had which gave him mobility and range of motion just made it to England last year. The surgery my son had was pioneered at Barnes Jewish Children's Hospital by a South Korean neurosurgeon. He did it because of the free market. If you want to kill innovation and kill the best cancer treatment in the world, then bring on government run medicine.

I think the solution of healthcare access is to cut the regulations on the insurance industry and allow Geico,Progressive , USAA, State Farm and Farmers to sell health insurance across state lines. Allow the market to work with competition and you will see costs come down. If Flow and the Gecko can drive insurance costs down for auto and homes , unleashing the market will drive these costs down. The insurance industry is highly regulated at the state level and if we just unshackle it and inject competition, costs will come down.

What I don't get is why we the people who embrace and see how the market works for auto insurance, cars, lap tops, iPhones, entertainment, food and on and on, why we think the answer is big government control of our healthcare and the most intimate part of our life, the relationship between us and our doctors? The answer is unleash the free market and get the government out of medicine not more into it. My kid can walk some and sit and enjoy life not because of the government, but because a surgeon developed a better way to treat cerebral palsy in kids. When Shriners reconstructed my son's hips and femors, they did so using cutting edge surgeons and through their investments and foundation, it costs us nothing. There are better ways.

European healthcare works in part because the US for 7 decades has paid for the brunt of their security. None of those socialist nation's had to pay much for their defense as we stayed and rebuilt their nations after WWII. Their socialist ways are not economically sustainable at all. I digress.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Do businesses really enjoy shopping for health care for their employees?

No.

 

[firm_bizzle]

My 21 year old son who is severely disabled due to contracting meningitis at 24 days old back in 1998. Kyle is blind, has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and is mentally retarded. I have been accessing specialists for two decades. My son has had 4 major surgeries including cutting edge selective dorsal rhizotomy surgery in St. Louis back in 2002.

I want zero part of any government run "free" healthcare . The fact is MFA will result in rationing and disabled kids and adults will get the short end of the stick because paying for heart surgery for a 40 year old normal adult will make more dollars and cents than say paying for the same surgery with a person with a half of a brain and is disabled.

The surgery my son had which gave him mobility and range of motion just made it to England last year. The surgery my son had was pioneered at Barnes Jewish Children's Hospital by a South Korean neurosurgeon. He did it because of the free market. If you want to kill innovation and kill the best cancer treatment in the world, then bring on government run medicine.

I think the solution of healthcare access is to cut the regulations on the insurance industry and allow Geico,Progressive , USAA, State Farm and Farmers to sell health insurance across state lines. Allow the market to work with competition and you will see costs come down. If Flow and the Gecko can drive insurance costs down for auto and homes , unleashing the market will drive these costs down. The insurance industry is highly regulated at the state level and if we just unshackle it and inject competition, costs will come down.

What I don't get is why we the people who embrace and see how the market works for auto insurance, cars, lap tops, iPhones, entertainment, food and on and on, why we think the answer is big government control of our healthcare and the most intimate part of our life, the relationship between us and our doctors? The answer is unleash the free market and get the government out of medicine not more into it. My kid can walk some and sit and enjoy life not because of the government, but because a surgeon developed a better way to treat cerebral palsy in kids. When Shriners reconstructed my son's hips and femors, they did so using cutting edge surgeons and through their investments and foundation, it costs us nothing. There are better ways.

European healthcare works in part because the US for 7 decades has paid for the brunt of their security. None of those socialist nation's had to pay much for their defense as we stayed and rebuilt their nations after WWII. Their socialist ways are not economically sustainable at all. I digress.

A lot of your son's care was out of pocket?

 

[goodknightfl]

I am getting old, and Obama said I would just need to take an Aspirin for major expensive problems. Thanks but no Thanks.

 

[Boosted87]

My 21 year old son who is severely disabled due to contracting meningitis at 24 days old back in 1998. Kyle is blind, has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and is mentally retarded. I have been accessing specialists for two decades. My son has had 4 major surgeries including cutting edge selective dorsal rhizotomy surgery in St. Louis back in 2002.

Your response is sobering and thanks for sharing. I do think it's important to recognize that there are benefits that come along with having the most expensive healthcare system in the world. That additional capital does allow us to be at the cutting edge, and stifling innovation is my single biggest concern with moving in this direction.

Car insurance is an interesting comparison. By law, you have to be insured to drive. The state regulates policies such that certain coverage minimums are required. On a very crude basis, this is what Obamacare tried to do - mandate coverage and establish standards for that coverage. Remember, that entire effort has it's beginning as Heritage Foundation alternative to single-payer from the 80's. I believe potential is there if you had bi-partisan efforts to iteratively improve it without the influence of lobbyists.

My experience is one of an entrepreneur. Our first private plan was pre-marketplace and there was a HUGE issue. Florida did not mandate maternity coverage - as a result, not a SINGLE private plan we could buy in Florida covered maternity care. We were planning to have a second child with a c-section likely as a result of the first birth. The plans did cover "complications due to pregnancy", but we could never get a clear answer exactly what that meant and I'm sure the insurance company interpreted that as favorably as they could.

Luckily for us, marketplace plans rolled out shortly thereafter and we were able to switch. Thanks to federal regulations, those plans had to include maternity coverage. We were out the ~$6k deductible or whatever after the second c-section, but the total hospital costs were multiples of that.

I don't see how deregulating at this level decreases costs other than a race to the bottom in terms of what's covered. The fundamental problem is a conflict of interest for private insurers. Profit margins for insurers run at about 5% on revenue. Their simplest path to profit maximization is to maximize the amount of money that flows through the system. It's like expecting credit card companies who capture 3% of every transaction to try and decrease the costs of goods and services purchased with their cards. Why on earth would they want to do that?

So the free-market incentive for insurers,as an industry, is to make healthcare as large a part of GDP as is possible to maximize the rent they extract from the system. From a cost perspective, this is why a single payer system has the potential to save so much money. Not that government is great at being efficient, but because that government entity will exist with a mandate to reduce costs. Even if it's terrible at it's job, simply eliminating the market-incentive to grow healthcare will do wonders over time.

 

[Boosted87]

MFA is such a slam dunk proposal that not a single far left blue state has implemented it at the State level

I believe any effort to do it at the state level would fail. The power to control costs comes at the federal level.

As an example, if you want to sell a drug in France, there's a board you have to go to. They evaluate the circumstances and they set the price. You can negotiate of course, but at the end of the day you have to take their decision or not sell the drug. Now, I realize that kind of cost-control doesn't align with free market principals. But here's the problem. It's not just France that does that. As far as I know, every other major country has similar price-controls on drugs.

So that means drug companies can subsidize development costs and margins here and still turn a marginal profit at much lower rates everywhere else. There's no fixing that imbalance unless we do something at the federal level to control costs here as well. That will put upward price pressure on what other countries have to pay to get things in balance.

As the world's largest economy, we should be able to negotiate the LOWEST price in the world and put price pressure on other countries.

 

[UCFWayne]

mfa will cost a ton of money. prices will go up for everyone. not to mention there will have to be rationing and wait times will increase dramatically. i dont like the idea of any of that.

 

[Crazyhole]

Here's how Medicare for all will go down:

For the first few years, it will be the best care in the world. Hospitals will do things like MRI scans for even the most minor issues and nobody will say a word because somebody else is paying for it.

Then the numbers will start to become problematic. There will be a national debate on how we have to raise taxes to balance the Medicare budget gap. Politicians on the left will say that the rich aren't paying their fair share. Ultimately, taxes on businesses will be raised to a level that is unsustainable. This will last about 2 years before unemployment goes up and costs for goods and services will go way up as they attempt to stay in business.

The government, seeing that this is financially going to bankrupt the country, will create a new bureaucracy intended to control "waste and fraud". Ultimately, it will become the largest department in the government. "Waste and fraud" will start with putting an end to frivolous treatment measures that hospitals have been using to line their pockets, like that MRI for a broken toe. They will then tout how they've cut costs by 3 or 4% and use it as a justification to expand their role. Every hospital will now have a group of in-office government officials to make sure that people are getting the treatment that they "need". The bureaucracy will grow and the overhead will grow, leading to an increasing budget deficit. Once again, the country will have a national debate on who we need to raise taxes on, and ultimately it will be that the middle class is the only pool of money large enough to dip into to make it work.

This is where we start to see private hospitals and doctors start to pop up that will provide whatever care you want, but only the rich will be able to afford it. At this point we will start to see a 2-class healthcare system. Of course, washington will vote to provide medical benefits for themselves as part of their benefit package. The best doctors will move to these private hospitals because it gives them the freedom of not having to get permission to provide the care they feel is appropriate.

The numbers still won't work, and basic care will be slowed to a crawl due to the bureaucracy. Fewer doctors and nurses will want to be a part of the industry and we will have a shortage of qualified people to provide care. This leads to even longer waits and rationing will become a necessity.

What happens next is pretty unknown, but I tend to think it won't be pretty.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I believe any effort to do it at the state level would fail. The power to control costs comes at the federal level.

As an example, if you want to sell a drug in France, there's a board you have to go to. They evaluate the circumstances and they set the price. You can negotiate of course, but at the end of the day you have to take their decision or not sell the drug. Now, I realize that kind of cost-control doesn't align with free market principals. But here's the problem. It's not just France that does that. As far as I know, every other major country has similar price-controls on drugs.

So that means drug companies can subsidize development costs and margins here and still turn a marginal profit at much lower rates everywhere else. There's no fixing that imbalance unless we do something at the federal level to control costs here as well. That will put upward price pressure on what other countries have to pay to get things in balance.

As the world's largest economy, we should be able to negotiate the LOWEST price in the world and put price pressure on other countries.

The answer to improving drug prices is not making America into a Federal, centrally planned cost control market like the Europeans; the answer is to demand the Europeans pay the fair market price for the drug and allow these companies to amortize the R&D costs in their markets and spread that amortization out beyond just America (as you said).

If there's no market to let drug companies set a price to recoup the enormous up front investment and make some level of profit then they simply won't invest any longer.

 

[Boosted87]

The answer to improving drug prices is not making America into a Federal, centrally planned cost control market like the Europeans; the answer is to demand the Europeans pay the fair market price for the drug and allow these companies to amortize the R&D costs in their markets and spread that amortization out beyond just America (as you said).

If there's no market to let drug companies set a price to recoup the enormous up front investment and make some level of profit then they simply won't invest any longer.

So we both agree on a fundamental aspect of the problem - American citizens are doing the subsidizing. The problem is, how do you use Free Market forces to fix this specific problem? Any choice you make will require government regulation. Are you going to legislatively demand that US companies don't sell drugs into markets unless some criteria are met? Are you going to put them at a competitive disadvantage by artificially increasing their prices overseas, leading to lost business to foreign copycats? Any solution will require regulation and "central planning" to achieve benefit for American consumers.

Yes, we want profit-incentives to drive new drug development, but keep in mind that Big Pharma is heavily reliant on government funded research through NIH, and they don't like cuts to that funding. This study says that NIH funding contributed to public research associated with every one of 210 new drugs that received FDA approval between 2010 and 2016. That is mostly basic research that drug companies use to take next steps. Maybe a chunk of profit should go back to the taxpayer in those cases?

Plus many of the egregious abuses are not paying back R&D. When a holding company buys the rights to a niche drug and jacks up the price, that's got nothing to do with paying back R&D. Cases like that are clear cut examples of something a national pricing board could eliminate immediately and it's absurd that our system even allows that to be possible.

 

[firm_bizzle]

mfa will cost a ton of money. prices will go up for everyone. not to mention there will have to be rationing and wait times will increase dramatically. i dont like the idea of any of that.

They'll just import more doctors.

 

[firm_bizzle]

My 21 year old son who is severely disabled due to contracting meningitis at 24 days old back in 1998. Kyle is blind, has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and is mentally retarded. I have been accessing specialists for two decades. My son has had 4 major surgeries including cutting edge selective dorsal rhizotomy surgery in St. Louis back in 2002.

I want zero part of any government run "free" healthcare . The fact is MFA will result in rationing and disabled kids and adults will get the short end of the stick because paying for heart surgery for a 40 year old normal adult will make more dollars and cents than say paying for the same surgery with a person with a half of a brain and is disabled.

The surgery my son had which gave him mobility and range of motion just made it to England last year. The surgery my son had was pioneered at Barnes Jewish Children's Hospital by a South Korean neurosurgeon. He did it because of the free market. If you want to kill innovation and kill the best cancer treatment in the world, then bring on government run medicine.

I think the solution of healthcare access is to cut the regulations on the insurance industry and allow Geico,Progressive , USAA, State Farm and Farmers to sell health insurance across state lines. Allow the market to work with competition and you will see costs come down. If Flow and the Gecko can drive insurance costs down for auto and homes , unleashing the market will drive these costs down. The insurance industry is highly regulated at the state level and if we just unshackle it and inject competition, costs will come down.

What I don't get is why we the people who embrace and see how the market works for auto insurance, cars, lap tops, iPhones, entertainment, food and on and on, why we think the answer is big government control of our healthcare and the most intimate part of our life, the relationship between us and our doctors? The answer is unleash the free market and get the government out of medicine not more into it. My kid can walk some and sit and enjoy life not because of the government, but because a surgeon developed a better way to treat cerebral palsy in kids. When Shriners reconstructed my son's hips and femors, they did so using cutting edge surgeons and through their investments and foundation, it costs us nothing. There are better ways.

European healthcare works in part because the US for 7 decades has paid for the brunt of their security. None of those socialist nation's had to pay much for their defense as we stayed and rebuilt their nations after WWII. Their socialist ways are not economically sustainable at all. I digress.

Is Medicare being rationalize? Old people like Medicare.

 

[Crazyhole]

Is Medicare being rationalize? Old people like Medicare.

Then why are older people increasingly buying private supplemental insurance?

 

[sk8knight]

Then why are older people increasingly buying private supplemental insurance?

Because they fall for slick advertising campaigns?

 

[UCFBS]

Warren needs to get back on the reality reservation.

Then why are older people increasingly buying private supplemental insurance?

Which is basically outlawed under Medicare for All.

The Atlantic, a multi-century Liberal magazine, has repeatedly pointed out how out-of-touch even Democratic voters are with the plans. It's unreal that they don't understand there will be really no supplement options like today, they won't have the option to keep their doctors, various choices, etc...

 

[UCFKnight85]

Here are some of the findings from Dr. Kenneth Thorpe at Emory Business School who advised Vermont on single payer back a few years ago. He is directly responding to the claim (lie) pushed by Warren that people will pay more in taxes BUT their overall costs will go down, since the taxes paid will be less than the current expenses incurred today.

False. Everyone who pushes this plan deals in total lies.

Allies of the Medicare for All plan correctly points out there would be savings from the approach for families from out of pocket health care costs. Certainly not paying premiums or a deductible or a copayment would save many families money. We estimate that would average over $2 trillion per year over the next ten years. However, taxes would have to be increased by an average of $3.2 trillion over the same period. A Medicare for All plan would create enormous winners and losers that have not been discussed in the debate. My recent analysis compares the dollars savings households with private health insurance would receive through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing to the new federal taxes they would pay to fund the program. The analysis shows that 71 percent of households with private insurance today would pay more in new taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing.

For example, two-thirds of workers in small firms under 50 would pay more in taxes under a Medicare for All plan than they would save in the elimination of premiums and cost sharing. The tax increases would also hit the middle class. Two-thirds of families of 4 earning $50,000 to $75,000 would pay more in taxes than they would save through a Medicare for All plan. Overall over 10 million households earning between 200 and 300 percent of poverty would pay more in taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing. Overall nearly 70 million households would pay more in higher taxes than they would save under Medicare for All.

Oh, and it'd be a massive job killer too:

Medicare for All advocates point out that paying providers at Medicare rates and administrative savings would reduce what we spend on health care. That ignores the fundamental equation that expenditures equal income. For example, paying the over 5,000 community hospitals at Medicare rates would reduce their revenue by 16 percent and eliminate 1.5 million jobs. Hospitals are often the largest employer in many small and mid-size communities that reductions of this magnitude would have enormous economic and social implications for them. The elimination of private insurance would also result in lost jobs through the elimination of health insurance, by some estimates nearly 1 million in the health insurance industry.

https://www.sph.emory.edu/departments/hpm/_page-content/The-Disruptive-Distributional-Impacts.pdf

 

[Poolside Knight]

what Gwen Graham wanted in FL polls well

 

[UCFWayne]

i wonder why california has implemented it yet....

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

Taxes would need to drastically increase for everybody. 49% are paying no federal tax. Not sure how we would even have the medical staff to handle if everyone went to the doctor for every cold or sickness.

Our corporations are already heavily taxed. I'd rather get them down to 5% corporate tax. Tax individual income more and watch large companies flock to the us. Not the other way.

 

[UCFKnight85]

what Gwen Graham wanted in FL polls well

View embedded media

Public option is nothing more than a slower, more deceptive way to eventually arrive at MFA. It’s a sham. There’s a reason the MFA proponents all support it, they know it eventually will end up crippling the private insurance market and forcing everyone into an unaffordable MFA one way or another

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

This thread's funny.

ITT: "MFA will never work here!"

The rest of the civilized world with free healthcare: "LOL."

Our healthcare system is so bad that I have a group of friends that have lived here for 30 years, fly home to Canada to get just about anything done.

Not only is it free, but it's actually LESS wait, and less hassle.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This thread's funny.

ITT: "MFA will never work here!"

The rest of the civilized world with free healthcare: "LOL."

Our healthcare system is so bad that I have a group of friends that have lived here for 30 years, fly home to Canada to get just about anything done.

Not only is it free, but it's actually LESS wait, and less hassle.

it’s only funny if you do things like skip over findings from respected economists who refute the absurd claims of MFA proponents as you did.

But your friends go to Canada and stuff so you must be right

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

So you're sticking with "it works everywhere else but it can't work here"?

I thought we're supposed to be the greatest country, yet we can't take care of our own?

Pathetic.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Here are some of the findings from Dr. Kenneth Thorpe at Emory Business School who advised Vermont on single payer back a few years ago. He is directly responding to the claim (lie) pushed by Warren that people will pay more in taxes BUT their overall costs will go down, since the taxes paid will be less than the current expenses incurred today.

False. Everyone who pushes this plan deals in total lies.

Allies of the Medicare for All plan correctly points out there would be savings from the approach for families from out of pocket health care costs. Certainly not paying premiums or a deductible or a copayment would save many families money. We estimate that would average over $2 trillion per year over the next ten years. However, taxes would have to be increased by an average of $3.2 trillion over the same period. A Medicare for All plan would create enormous winners and losers that have not been discussed in the debate. My recent analysis compares the dollars savings households with private health insurance would receive through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing to the new federal taxes they would pay to fund the program. The analysis shows that 71 percent of households with private insurance today would pay more in new taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing.

For example, two-thirds of workers in small firms under 50 would pay more in taxes under a Medicare for All plan than they would save in the elimination of premiums and cost sharing. The tax increases would also hit the middle class. Two-thirds of families of 4 earning $50,000 to $75,000 would pay more in taxes than they would save through a Medicare for All plan. Overall over 10 million households earning between 200 and 300 percent of poverty would pay more in taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing. Overall nearly 70 million households would pay more in higher taxes than they would save under Medicare for All.

Oh, and it'd be a massive job killer too:

Medicare for All advocates point out that paying providers at Medicare rates and administrative savings would reduce what we spend on health care. That ignores the fundamental equation that expenditures equal income. For example, paying the over 5,000 community hospitals at Medicare rates would reduce their revenue by 16 percent and eliminate 1.5 million jobs. Hospitals are often the largest employer in many small and mid-size communities that reductions of this magnitude would have enormous economic and social implications for them. The elimination of private insurance would also result in lost jobs through the elimination of health insurance, by some estimates nearly 1 million in the health insurance industry.

https://www.sph.emory.edu/departments/hpm/_page-content/The-Disruptive-Distributional-Impacts.pdf

reposting for @Trel MK since he seems to have skipped right over this

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

You do realize there's more than one way to do this, right?

Most other countries have figured out how to make this work. I'm pretty sure we can too.

It's crazy that you want healthcare to be for profit and for people to go bankrupt because they get sick.

You want $800 insulin? That's how you get $800 insulin.

 

[UCFKnight85]

You do realize there's more than one way to do this, right?

Most other countries have figured out how to make this work. I'm pretty sure we can too.

It's crazy that you want healthcare to be for profit and for people to go bankrupt because they get sick.

You want $800 insulin? That's how you get $800 insulin.

You appear to be the king of the straw men. Do you have a single argument here beyond “muh Europeanz did it!” and making insane claims like I want to pay $800 for insulin or whatever ?

Or are you saying this because you don’t have a fact checked and reality based way to explain how we’d pay for something like this?

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

You appear to be the king of the straw men. Do you have a single argument here beyond “muh Europeanz did it!” and making insane claims like I want to pay $800 for insulin or whatever ?

Or are you saying this because you don’t have a fact checked and reality based way to explain how we’d pay for something like this?

Do you have a single argument beyond "it can't work here"?

You can link whatever study you want. The results speak for themselves. This works in the majority of developed countries. You only think it's an issue and can't work here because you've been indoctrinated by your capitalist overlords that only value the almighty dollar and the perceived status it gives them above others who are less fortunate.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Do you have a single argument beyond "it can't work here"?

You can link whatever study you want. The results speak for themselves. This works in the majority of developed countries. You only think it's an issue and can't work here because you've been indoctrinated by your capitalist overlords that only value the almighty dollar and the perceived status it gives them above others who are less fortunate.

LOL!!

You ask if I have any argument beyond “it won’t work here” and then acknowledge that you’re ignorantly disregarding the study I posted from a respected PhD Economist at Emory who intimately worked on single payer in Vermont

And then to cap the post, you share some rehashed socialist talking point about capitalist overlords or whatever

 

[Poolside Knight]

I doubt the public would miss Aetna commercials

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

LOL!!

You ask if I have any argument beyond “it won’t work here” and then acknowledge that you’re ignorantly disregarding the study I posted from a respected PhD Economist at Emory who intimately worked on single payer in Vermont

And then to cap the post, you share some rehashed socialist talking point about capitalist overlords or whatever

I'm not "ignorantly disregarding" your link. I've acknowledged that it's trash.

You still haven't addressed the main issue of why it works everywhere else, but for some spooky reason, it can't work here.

Your argument is already invalid because the system has been in place in other countries and is working great. You would have us believe that the U.S. is so stupid, it can't figure this shit out, rather than see the truth that money controls those in power.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I'm not "ignorantly disregarding" your link. I've acknowledged that it's trash.

You still haven't addressed the main issue of why it works everywhere else, but for some spooky reason, it can't work here.

Your argument is already invalid because the system has been in place in other countries and is working great. You would have us believe that the U.S. is so stupid, it can't figure this shit out, rather than see the truth that money controls those in power.

I see- so you respond to with laughable straw men arguments and absolutely no fact based number crunching to support your view, and then somehow disregard the report I posted (by a PhD) as “trash” because it refutes your central thesis here and that’s just inconvenient for you

This would all be easier if you just admit that you didn’t actually read the report and are choosing to live in ignorance