Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The elderly is the most expensive group to care for. Thats why we have a single payer system already in place for them. Because you would be denied health care if you went free market for this group. The amount of waste and inefficiencies in the current system is what causes America's health care spending to be 18% of GDP, twice that of other developed countries. And all those countries have a single payer system.
Does the city of Chicago have ultra low wages for the poor combined with a sales tax on all groceries? Thats the Alabama system you want to see on a national scale. Alabama is a social darwinian disaster. Just like your agenda.
Chicago does not have a high sales tax on grocery store food. It does though tax candy, soda and alcoholic beverages at its higher rate. Grocery items are not tax exempt, but they are taxable at a reduced rate of 1%. Candy, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and food prepared for immediate consumption do not qualify for the 1% rate. The Illinois Senate is looking to raise the rate though. It would drop the overall sales tax, but tax food items and drugs. Who knows it that will pass.
When Sanders ran for president last year I thought he was a nut and a fringe, but to be honest he swayed me over on health care. I used to have a far more libertarian perspective on health insurance, but no longer. I would support this plan.
I used to have a far more libertarian perspective on health insurance, but no longer.
Then let me ask you.
--------------------------------------
The bill I've seen (HR 676: Medicare For All Act) seems to mandate "no cost sharing" -- no deductibles... no copays... no coinsurance... Section 102(c) — NO COST SHARING — No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.
It seems to eliminate the entire health insurance industry, such that literally every person is forced to go through the Federal Government. Section 104(a) — NO DUPLICATE COVERAGE — It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.
It seems to mandate that medical professionals who ever accept any money from Medicare For All are prohibited from ever accepting money for medical services any other way, including through "private pay," meaning you're either exclusively part of the Medicare For All or you're exclusively private pay. Section 202(f) — NO BALANCE BILLING — Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare For All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
--------------------------------------
So here are my questions for you:
Are the above stipulations in line with what you would support? Or is there some other Medicare For All that we're supposed to be talking about? If so, can that be shared?
How would true Single-Payer curb the huge problem of over-consumption of medical services? I feel like it would actually exacerbate that problem.
How would true Single-Payer cause humans to eat less and move more? I feel like it would encourage more unhealthful caloric intakes and sedentary lifestyles and less individual responsibility for one's meat robot.
How would Federal Government Healthcare For All manage to be more efficient and less wasteful? A giant organization with tens or hundreds of thousands of administrative employees trying to be all things to literally all people seems hopelessly bound for waste.
How would the Federal Government pay for $32 Trillion (Sanders' Single-Payer Health Care Would Cost $32 Trillion over 10 years -- NPR) in new spending? According to what I just looked up, the Federal Government currently spends about $3.8T and taxes us to the tune of $3.6T. What do we do if that $3.8T increases to $7.0T and what kind of growth-shattering tax bomb will we need to drop on the economy to even pretend we can afford that?
Is there some other cheaper proposal that we're supposed to be talking about? If so, can that be shared?
How would true Single-Payer avoid the other type of cost, paying in terms of wait times?
Medicare and Medicaid seem to underpay for services, compared to when private insurance is paying. How do we ensure this doesn't happen in Medicare For All? Or, if we simply lower compensation for all medical services, how do we continue to encourage people to go into and stay in the medical industry?
Would Single-Payer / Medicare For All be extended to undocumented immigrants?
How do we ensure handing every aspect of paying for health and medicine to the Federal Government doesn't lead to a vast increase in the size and scope of the surveillance state? Will the Federal Government / your fellow taxpapers have a keen interest in what each person ingests, where they go, their activities, their lifestyles, and their health habits? How do we ensure there's not any control mechanisms or social engineering mechanisms or invasive technologies (Neuralink? Smart Dust?) in use to make people do what they want us to do? Is concentrating ALL power in the government's hands the goal? Is it advisable?
And finally, how did you come to this determination?
As far as I'm concerned, that's the most practical solution to the healthcare problem. As is, and even before the ACA, Americans were spending more money on healthcare and getting the least for it when compared to other post-industrial democracies. If you're a fiscal conservative, which presumably most of the people skeptical of this move would be, then you should support medicare for all. No matter what, you pay for other people's healthcare. Medicare isn't going anywhere. You can dream up some reality where it's repealed, but you can't do this without lying about your intentions, like a typical neoliberal. Given the fact that medicare is grandfathered in at this point AND as is (pre or post ACA) already costs Americans a lot, it would be more cost efficient to simply expand it to all citizens. Then at least more people would get some bang for their buck, which as a fiscal conservative, is kind of the goal.
Chicago does not have a high sales tax on grocery store food. It does though tax candy, soda and alcoholic beverages at its higher rate. Grocery items are not tax exempt, but they are taxable at a reduced rate of 1%. Candy, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and food prepared for immediate consumption do not qualify for the 1% rate. The Illinois Senate is looking to raise the rate though. It would drop the overall sales tax, but tax food items and drugs. Who knows it that will pass.
Chicago has very high property taxes, and yes... even the poor pay them via rent, etc.
If we want Medicare for All single payer health care, it'll cost the federal government an additional $3.2 trillion per year, as already discussed. It would take a 25% national VAT tax that everyone pays to fund it.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the most practical solution to the healthcare problem. As is, and even before the ACA, Americans were spending more money on healthcare and getting the least for it when compared to other post-industrial democracies. If you're a fiscal conservative, which presumably most of the people skeptical of this move would be, then you should support medicare for all. No matter what, you pay for other people's healthcare. Medicare isn't going anywhere. You can dream up some reality where it's repealed, but you can't do this without lying about your intentions, like a typical neoliberal. Given the fact that medicare is grandfathered in at this point AND as is (pre or post ACA) already costs Americans a lot, it would be more cost efficient to simply expand it to all citizens. Then at least more people would get some bang for their buck, which as a fiscal conservative, is kind of the goal.
Please, read the post above this and still tell me Medicare for all is fiscally conservative.
Nonsense. Lots of people in any country will have no reported income in a given year. They could be selling drugs. They could be subsidized by friends or family, who knows.
That's why European and Scandinavian countries have a national VAT tax. No one can hide income from illicit activities. Everyone pays. Everyone contributes to society's well-being.
Please, read the post above this and still tell me Medicare for all is fiscally conservative.
It's not fiscally conservative. Many of us already know that. It would indeed take a 25% national VAT tax to fund it, but those who want Medicare for All don't want to actually have to pay for it. TANSTAAFL.
Please, read the post above this and still tell me Medicare for all is fiscally conservative.
It is. Spending more money isn't necessarily contrary to fiscal conservative policy. Fiscal conservatives (assuming we define this as someone who believes money should be spent more prudently and more effectively) would want to improve healthcare policy in this country since current policy is not cost effective. Expanding it would mean spending more, and that's not ideal, but it would also mean more tax payers get more for what they spend. Currently, tax payers just spend a lot, and many don't actually get anything in return. That is far more in violation of fiscal conservative policy that spending more to get a more cost effective system.
Perhaps you confuse neoliberalism, which wants to privatize as much as possible (often under the guise of fiscal conservatism, since those policies are usually wildly unpopular if they were open about their goals), with fiscal conservatism, which just wants a financially sensible government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
