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.
your data is old and i note you are afraid to post even that old data because it exposes your pretense of increased burden.
We get Informed, you did not bother to get informed and got in over your head. It happens, it is clear you don't like the plan but are unable to provide a fiscal reason as to why so instead you are just repeating 3.2 trillion as if it proves you correct. It does not.
How else would that extra $3.2 trillion/year to pay for MfA be funded?
Yes, it is. Read the Urban Institute's report. The Fed Gov's ADDITIONAL cost for MfA is $32 trillion over ten year. That's $3.2 trillion/year. On top of what the Fed Gov already spends on Medicaid/CHIP and Medicare.
NOPE.
i know it hurts you to admit it, but you know the TOTAL SPEND DECLINES. YES of course as it has been stated a hundred times in this thread the gov will play a much bigger role, but all that changes is who gets paid . Fed instead of insurers... no new burden to carried by taxpayers although that is clearly what you want people to think.
Yes, it is. When employers no longer have to subsidize employees' health insurance, WHO picks up the tab for Fed Gov MfA? Answer the questions... Exactly to WHOM would the new $3.2 trillion worth of Fed Gov tax bills needed to fund MfA be apportioned? WHO pays, and HOW much?
Yes, it is. When employers no longer have to subsidize employees' health insurance, WHO picks up the tab for Fed Gov MfA? Answer the questions... Exactly to WHOM would the new $3.2 trillion worth of Fed Gov tax bills needed to fund MfA be apportioned? WHO pays, and HOW much?
The income tax from all those jobs created by employers when they are no longer burdened with providing employees with the high cost of health insurance.
I'm using the $3.2 trillion/year extra cost to the Fed Gov for MfA reported by the Urban Institute. That's ADDITIONAL spending on health care. On TOP of what the Fed Gov already spends on health care.
Federal government covers the elderly and disabled already. In other words, the government pays for healthcare of the sickest while the insurance companies cherry pick only those who have to be healthy enough to work.
The income tax from all those jobs created by employers when they are no longer burdened with providing employees with the high cost of health insurance.
Employers don't create jobs unless there is a need for additional labor.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,716,685 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Where do I claim that I would take more out of the system than I put in? I said the only selling point the Sanders plan has is how I can have lots of medical care for free should a catastrophic illness befall me.
So far in my adult working life, I have contributed ~$250k to medical insurance and used maybe $20k in actual expenses. There's a reason my HSA has a rather sizable balance. But all my insurance costs and medical spending are voluntary agreements with other voluntary, for profit actors.
I am on record saying there's no way I am going down the "anything for another month of life" spending plan too many Americans choose. My wife and I agree on that 100%. Part of my dedication to that is specifically because I shouldn't take more out of a system than I and compound interest put in. The other part is simple math and ethical thinking. Tons of stuff in the world has more ROI than me adding another month in a hospital bed to my lifespan. I am pretty steadfast in my opposition to exorbitant medical spending, and I have no intention of backing away from that belief.
Under my belief system, the 7% and never spending tons of money on a catastrophic illness makes more sense to me than 27% and never spending tons of money on a catastrophic illness.
I save for what I want, and if I cannot afford it, I don't need it. That includes medical care.
You are not going to get the majority to agree with you on that!
Washington Examiner needed some subject to print so they chose this route.
Medicare for all could mean just that, ALL. Not just for the healthy patients (ha ha that is an oxymoron and makes a strong point).
Medical care or health care for all does not lead to any of the negative things you propose and is just preposterous and flimsy. You are cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Again in your face, successful health systems do not experience any of this volunteerism you suggest. Why resistant to ride on another country's successful example?. There are plenty to choose from. Out of the 33 developed countries, 32 have universal health care. USA is not one of the 32. Falling behind.
To refute your claim that doctors would have to work for free.... see this example from Canada (5th place in world).
"The average gross pay for a doctor sits at $339,000. Keep in mind, the amount varies based on doctors' specialties though: family physicians make about $271,000 while medical specialists make about $338,000 and surgical specialists earn $446,000. "
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.
