Washington Examiner: "Medicare for All" would require obesity laws. (compare, vs)
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.
EVERY developed nation in the world has healthcare for folks. Except the US. And they do so on average spending 1/2 of what we do on it. last year we spent more then 10,739 per person for healthcare. Median Family income of 59,000, median family size is 2.6. So the median family income is 59K, and the median family medical spending is 27K. So if we had a 50% tax rate, and it covered all our medical, we would be better off overall.
If you are saying "But *I* don't spend that much" the answer is-you probably do. through taxes you pay for medicare, through insurance paid by your employer, etc. A ton of it is hidden from you. My insurance is around $1,500 a month, but my employer pays all but 250 of it.
If there is "medicare for all", as a physician, I will have to quit practicing, as my practice would go bankrupt. I could simply do legal work, which I do already, and still be employed in a capacity as a physician, but not practicing clinically. Currently I can make more money working two weekends a month doing legal work than I can full time at my practice.
As I am approaching medicare age, I am conflicted about medicare. I know that physicians and hospitals put medicare patients "behind" commercial insurance; I have a few medical problems for which I want to be "first in line" and will thus never go on medicare. With better paying commercial insurance, I am assured of getting better treatment.
The problem with the commercial insurance is that I am uninsureable, due to previous conditions, such that I cannot buy a commercial policy on my own and must be employed by a larger group.
I think some form of universal healthcare would be nice for patients, but I personally would want private insurance as well to get better care.
Your concerns about your own healthcare versus Medicare are exactly the reason private insurers need to be eliminated. If you are a physician, you took the Hippocratic Oath, which as I recall had no mention of the ability of a patient to pay. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your concerns about your own healthcare versus Medicare are exactly the reason private insurers need to be eliminated. If you are a physician, you took the Hippocratic Oath, which as I recall had no mention of the ability of a patient to pay. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Typical Dem wants total control, no freedom of choice.
I assume you work for free out of the goodness of your heart? Perhaps minimum wage because that makes you a better person. God forbid someone pays a lot of money for specialized training, expecting to make a living later.
The 2020 elections will answer that question. You are stating what may happen. I'm wondering if that is wise. The Supreme Court is remarkably partisan, conservatives are in the majority and the Koch brothers are not dead yet so there will be challenges to a new law that both insures all and makes the very rich pay for it.
There will never be a law that makes the very rich pay for anything. The feds don't even have the authority to tax wealth. Like everything else, Medicare for all would be paid for by working Americans for the benefit of the parasites at the top and bottom.
And this increases GDP and job growth and Pharma and Hospital profits, right?
Most Diabetes 2 is preventable. Despite this, seems no shortage of us prefer to blame than take personal responsibility.
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.