Medicare for All Question

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

Fact based: it already exists and works well in other countries.

You can use your alternative facts all you want trying to claim something can't work that already does. Enjoy.

 

[Boosted87]

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

Absolute nonsense. There's plenty of valid debate that doesn't deal in lies.

I'd argue that the majority of "lies" on this debate come from the other side. Why? Financial incentive. There's a whole bunch of corporate money funding efforts to criticize and undermine MFA to prop up the current system. There's no vested financial interests trying to create MFA.

 

[DaShuckster]

Absolute nonsense. There's plenty of valid debate that doesn't deal in lies.

I'd argue that the majority of "lies" on this debate come from the other side. Why? Financial incentive.

EXACTLY! Money Talks. Logic has little to do with decisions when big money is involved.

If you want an example, look no further than the tobacco industry. Research identified the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer as early as 1929. In 1954 the American Cancer Society linked smoking and cancer and 12 years later, the US Surgeon General declared smoking is the cause of lung cancer.

So what happened? In 1971, the Government made a bold step to outlaw...TV advertising.

Cigarette smoking is still legal today, 53 years after we knew for a fact that its 1) highly addictive; and 2) causes lung cancer.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Absolute nonsense. There's plenty of valid debate that doesn't deal in lies.

I'd argue that the majority of "lies" on this debate come from the other side. Why? Financial incentive. There's a whole bunch of corporate money funding efforts to criticize and undermine MFA to prop up the current system. There's no vested financial interests trying to create MFA.

No, this is absolute nonsense. Are there interests pushing back on MFA? Sure. Of course there are. That doesn't change the fact that the D's running for President are all knowingly lying about what MFA would actually require, whether it be the total loss of private insurance, promising no tax increases on the middle class, hilariously rosy assessments of how it'd be implemented, or flat out refusing to even answer what the total annual price tag would be.

Every single assessment on MFA from every side of the issue has put the annual price tag at somewhere between $2.5 - 4.5 Trillion in new spending per year.

Sanders has arguably been the most honest since he acknowledges that he'll gladly tax everyone a lot more, but he's still lying to people when he says that the overall costs to a family will go down by a bigger amount than what they currently pay out of pocket now with private insurance. I liked a study above which refutes this claim and there are at least 2 others from respected economists who do the same.

 

[UCFKnight85]

A new study out today from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget again squashed Warren's claims (lies) that Medicare For All can be entirely funded by soaking the rich and evil corporations.

There is not enough annual income available among higher earners to finance the full cost of Medicare for All. On a static basis, even increasing the top two income tax rates (applying to individuals making over $204,000 per year and couples making over $408,000 per year) to 100 percent would not raise $30 trillion over a decade. In reality, a tax increase that large would actually lose revenue because it would institute marginal tax rates above 100 percent when other taxes are incorporated – effectively requiring people to pay rather than be paid to work, earn business income, or sell capital assets. We previously found that an extremely aggressive package of tax hikes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector might cover one-third of the $30 trillion cost of Medicare for All.

 

[Crazyhole]

No, this is absolute nonsense. Are there interests pushing back on MFA? Sure. Of course there are. That doesn't change the fact that the D's running for President are all knowingly lying about what MFA would actually require, whether it be the total loss of private insurance, promising no tax increases on the middle class, hilariously rosy assessments of how it'd be implemented, or flat out refusing to even answer what the total annual price tag would be.

Every single assessment on MFA from every side of the issue has put the annual price tag at somewhere between $2.5 - 4.5 Trillion in new spending per year.

Sanders has arguably been the most honest since he acknowledges that he'll gladly tax everyone a lot more, but he's still lying to people when he says that the overall costs to a family will go down by a bigger amount than what they currently pay out of pocket now with private insurance. I liked a study above which refutes this claim and there are at least 2 others from respected economists who do the same.

All we have to do is look at this objectively. About 1/3rd of us citizens are already receiving free or subsidized healthcare. Those people will continue to not pay for healthcare. The other 2/3rds pay and do technically cover the costs of the other 1/3rd. Of the 1/3rd who are subsidized and have jobs, those people pay Medicare taxes out of their paychecks so their take home pay will have to go down (i.e tax increase). The people who already pay for their own health insurance AND kick into Medicare will have to hope that govt to be more efficient at health insurance than private insurers are, which is almost impossible with a comparable workforce. So how do we possibly come up with a scenario where people other than the uber rich come out ahead unless we treat this as a typical govt expense that comes out of the general budget?

 

[UCFKnight85]

All we have to do is look at this objectively. About 1/3rd of us citizens are already receiving free or subsidized healthcare. Those people will continue to not pay for healthcare. The other 2/3rds pay and do technically cover the costs of the other 1/3rd. Of the 1/3rd who are subsidized and have jobs, those people pay Medicare taxes out of their paychecks so their take home pay will have to go down (i.e tax increase). The people who already pay for their own health insurance AND kick into Medicare will have to hope that govt to be more efficient at health insurance than private insurers are, which is almost impossible with a comparable workforce. So how do we possibly come up with a scenario where people other than the uber rich come out ahead unless we treat this as a typical govt expense that comes out of the general budget?

Thats precisely what the Emory PhD Economist found as a conclusion when he did his report, to which every leftie on this board decided to not read the report and disregarded it outright for partisan reasons

 

[Boosted87]

No, this is absolute nonsense. Are there interests pushing back on MFA? Sure. Of course there are. That doesn't change the fact that the D's running for President are all knowingly lying about what MFA would actually require, whether it be the total loss of private insurance, promising no tax increases on the middle class, hilariously rosy assessments of how it'd be implemented, or flat out refusing to even answer what the total annual price tag would be.

Every single assessment on MFA from every side of the issue has put the annual price tag at somewhere between $2.5 - 4.5 Trillion in new spending per year.

Sanders has arguably been the most honest since he acknowledges that he'll gladly tax everyone a lot more, but he's still lying to people when he says that the overall costs to a family will go down by a bigger amount than what they currently pay out of pocket now with private insurance. I liked a study above which refutes this claim and there are at least 2 others from respected economists who do the same.

In 2017, we spent $3.5 trillion on healthcare, accounting for 18% of GDP. That's roughly $10,700 per person. Roughly twice as much what other industrialized nations spend. These analyses are basically saying that at a system level, it costs the same as the current system. Hardly earth-shattering data here. Would you be shifting the funding mechanism to taxes? ABSOLUTELY. This is an insanely hard sell politically. But I don't think it's an intellectually honest debate to point out how much the "new" system costs while ignoring how much the current one costs. Of course there's going to be winners and losers, that's unavoidable with systemic change to 18% of the economy. That doesn't mean it can't be the better long term play.

Imagine the reverse. Going form MFA to a system where corporations funded a huge chunk of private insurance plans and arguing against it because "it's effectively a giant tax on corporate America. Now you're going to let Google and Facebook decide who your Dr is. What if you work for Google, but their new private plan doesn't include your doctor?"

I personally think there's a huge benefit by severing the ties to employment. I want a working professional with a family to have the courage to quit his job and start a company without the weight of health insurance being the anchor that ties him to that 9-5 job. I think this would be a huge win for non-healthcare corporations and entrepreneurship.

 

[Crazyhole]

The funny thing about MFA is that it is sold as being the same as so many other countries' approach. The truth is, there are only 2 single payer countries in the world and neither of them ban private supplemental insurance. Most of the countries that Bernie references have mandated local insurers that have the ability to shop private companies for the best prices. There is a federal mandate to have insurance but it is passed down to municipalities to figure out how to make them work. Canada has a true single payer system but doesn't ban private policies. What they are proposing is unprecedented if we disregard the USSR and China, who both use(d) healthcare for political and social engineering purposes

 

[Crazyhole]

In 2017, we spent $3.5 trillion on healthcare, accounting for 18% of GDP. That's roughly $10,700 per person. Roughly twice as much what other industrialized nations spend. These analyses are basically saying that at a system level, it costs the same as the current system. Hardly earth-shattering data here. Would you be shifting the funding mechanism to taxes? ABSOLUTELY. This is an insanely hard sell politically. But I don't think it's an intellectually honest debate to point out how much the "new" system costs while ignoring how much the current one costs. Of course there's going to be winners and losers, that's unavoidable with systemic change to 18% of the economy. That doesn't mean it can't be the better long term play.

Imagine the reverse. Going form MFA to a system where corporations funded a huge chunk of private insurance plans and arguing against it because "it's effectively a giant tax on corporate America. Now you're going to let Google and Facebook decide who your Dr is. What if you work for Google, but their new private plan doesn't include your doctor?"

I personally think there's a huge benefit by severing the ties to employment. I want a working professional with a family to have the courage to quit his job and start a company without the weight of health insurance being the anchor that ties him to that 9-5 job. I think this would be a huge win for non-healthcare corporations and entrepreneurship.

What you are saying you want is exactly what health insurance looked like prior to FDR.

 

[Boosted87]

The funny thing about MFA is that it is sold as being the same as so many other countries' approach. The truth is, there are only 2 single payer countries in the world and neither of them ban private supplemental insurance. Most of the countries that Bernie references have mandated local insurers that have the ability to shop private companies for the best prices. There is a federal mandate to have insurance but it is passed down to municipalities to figure out how to make them work. Canada has a true single payer system but doesn't ban private policies. What they are proposing is unprecedented if we disregard the USSR and China, who both use(d) healthcare for political and social engineering purposes

I don't disagree that MFA in concept - or more specifically Sanders plan - is filled with issues. The problem is that ANY plan or system - including what we have today - is going to be filled with issues. There's no magical unicorn here. Where I appreciate Sanders is recognizing that we need systemic change.

Basically, it's like the building is on fire and all the Republicans are saying "this is fine!" and proposing solutions like strategically pouring a water bottle in places that are extra hot. Meanwhile, Bernie is trying to bring in a helicopter and drop 10,000 gallons of sprite on the fire. I've got no idea how well sprite puts out fires, but credit goes to actually realizing the level of effort that is needed.

I'd love to see a conservative alternative. The problem is that alternative already exists - it's Obamacare - a heavily regulated, market based solution. I've long held the belief that if Republicans refused to embrace that system and try to maximize it's efficiency, the only logical next step would be some type of single-payer style system.

 

[sk8knight]

I don't disagree that MFA in concept - or more specifically Sanders plan - is filled with issues. The problem is that ANY plan or system - including what we have today - is going to be filled with issues. There's no magical unicorn here. Where I appreciate Sanders is recognizing that we need systemic change.

Basically, it's like the building is on fire and all the Republicans are saying "this is fine!" and proposing solutions like strategically pouring a water bottle in places that are extra hot. Meanwhile, Bernie is trying to bring in a helicopter and drop 10,000 gallons of sprite on the fire. I've got no idea how well sprite puts out fires, but credit goes to actually realizing the level of effort that is needed.

I'd love to see a conservative alternative. The problem is that alternative already exists - it's Obamacare - a heavily regulated, market based solution. I've long held the belief that if Republicans refused to embrace that system and try to maximize it's efficiency, the only logical next step would be some type of single-payer style system.

Where do you get the idea that Obamacare is a conservative alternative by any means?

 

[DaShuckster]

Where do you get the idea that Obamacare is a conservative alternative by any means?

Maybe because it was originally the product of a Conservative Think Tank and first implemented by Mitt Romney in Mass.

 

[Boosted87]

Where do you get the idea that Obamacare is a conservative alternative by any means?

Because this is all relative. I'm saying that a system like Obamacare is a conservative alternative to something like single payer. Obamacare did not socialize health care delivery (like the VA or the UK). Obamacare did not socialize insurance (like Medicare or Canada). It isn't a universal system with private overlays (like France). It's simply an expansion of private insurance and Medicaid with an individual mandate and subsidies.

In a world where every other major nation has some form of universal coverage, it would seem fair to call our current system "conservative" in contrast. That doesn't mean it couldn't be "more conservative". The Heritage Foundation made a case for an individual mandate back in 1989 (though in 2012 they reversed course and said they were wrong on this point).

Newt Gingrich was notoriously supportive of an individual mandate until he wasn't. The reality is that an Obamacare-like solution is a logical conservative alternative to something like Canada/France/whoever. So if you don't want to move further left, you better maximize the efficiency of this type of solution.

 

[MACHater02]

Wasn’t Bob Dole pushing a version of ACA too?

 

[sk8knight]

Maybe because it was originally the product of a Conservative Think Tank and first implemented by Mitt Romney in Mass.

That’s quite the conflation. The heritage foundation only discussed an individual mandate and Romneycare was a similar system. But I’d venture to say that Jonathan Gruber and a number of Democrats would take exception to your characterization.

 

[Crazyhole]

Maybe because it was originally the product of a Conservative Think Tank and first implemented by Mitt Romney in Mass.

Romneycare is more consistent with how the Scandinavian countries do healthcare, but on a slightly larger scale.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Liz Sitting Bull Warren is out today with a plan that "promises" to install a $52 Trillion (new spending) MFA plan without taxing a single "middle class" person more. In other words, complete bullshit and fantasy.

Instead she'll just hike this ridiculous and likely unconstitutional "wealth tax" to 6% on rich people and gouge companies with a massive new corporate tax rate.

Only, her own press release admits this still only raises $26 Trillion against the $52 Trillion price tag.

As I said, MFA is unfeasible here and would be an utter nuclear disaster but I'm happy these nuts are pushing it. I hope she wins the nomination.