HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » True or False: EXPANDING ...

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 05:52 PM

True or False: EXPANDING Medicare to All is the most fiscally conservative policy option.



So why are we letting the people who caused the crisis set the agenda?









15 replies, 1152 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:09 PM

1. not a nice thing to say about democrats lol - they don't want medicare for all nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:11 PM

2. Don't tar us all with the same brush!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:13 PM

3. True. Having young healthy people in the system will balance it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:58 PM

4. true - the larger the pool the less adversity affects it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:02 PM

5. False. All workers pay into Medicare now.

 

Yet only those over 65 receive benefits (plus the disabled).

Posts like this diminish the value of worker contributions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:06 PM

12. It would seem that the question would be to compare the fiscal soundness of Medicare for All vs the



...current system in its entirety.

That is, would the total of funds now spent on healthcare for those younger than 65 be more responsibly spent on Medicare for All than the current system?

Another way to phrase the question would be to ask if the Medicare system, presently or expanded to include everyone, is currently, or would be, more fiscally responsible than the current private insurance based system?

The question is not limited to the present worker contributions to Medicare, but includes all funds spent on healthcare, including insurance, private payments, taxpayer support of hospital districts, etc.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:04 PM

6. false

getting rid of the health care system is the most fiscally conservative policy.

If there was no health care system then no one could complain they didn't have access to it. The 1 % can always take their private jet to Canada to see a doctor.

Of course you would still pay a medicare payroll tax... there just would be a system to spend that money on and they would use that money to funnel more of the budget to the rich.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:04 PM

7. make it available to all, regardless of age

 

health care is a basic human right, and is recognized as such in most civilized countries, the United States being an exception. There are some areas where profit should not be the principle motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:27 PM

8. Yes, without competition from a public option like Medicare ...

private healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket. Why does an aspirin cost $25 in the hospital? Because they can get the insurance company to pay that. Why does a coronary bypass operation cost $200K? Same thing. An MRI costs $1200 in the US. In France it costs $250. The "free market", charging whatever the market will bear, is a disaster when it comes to healthcare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:34 PM

9. I just have to nod my head in agreement

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:03 PM

10. If you were in a cave during the creation of the Affordable Care Act,

you wouldn't know that activists as well as doctors from the Physicians for a National Health Plan were repeatedly arrested when they asked for a voice in the debates to put forth the case for single payer or Medicare for all. When the idea of a Public Option or a plan to offer Medicare on the exchange was presented, Democratic senators like Max Baucus refused to put it in the bill. So that's what happened. The Affordable Care Act was written by health insurance company and PhRMA lobbyists and they prevailed.

The only way we will ever see Medicare for All is when the insurance companies start finding the business unprofitable and decide to get out of it, then the government will have to step in to offer some kind of national health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:05 PM

14. one can draw a direct line from the end of prohibition to the health care debacle.

think about it- when organized crime couldn't be in the booze biz anymore, what else were they any good at?

INSURANCE!

The insurance industry is what's come of the mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:44 PM

15. & insurace companies won't reach that point until they have sucked us dry.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:04 PM

11. True, even with abuses it functions at something more than 10 points lower than the MLR

specified by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

This means that with further cost efficiencies directed toward developing care and services, we can invest in preventative and authentically valid alternative treatment modalities, including mental health parity, that will give Americans even more bang for their buck than they are currently receiving from Medicare, which increased efficiencies will reduce the costs of health care over-all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:55 PM

13. It would be the most fiscally efficient option.

It would get the overall cost of healthcare down and get the cost per person down for Medicare.

And the would also be the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread