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.
LOL that you think the people who are fighting against this are advocates of "small government." That's a good one, RMESMH!!
So we can never, ever make any policy changes because they might be unfair to the generations who came before, when times were different and needs were different? How do we move forward if we must keep everything static so people aren't offended by necessary and needed change?
The bottom line is, healthcare in this country is broken. Both sides agree with that. Doing nothing, which is the only proposal coming from the right, is not going to solve anything. Where are the conservatives' ideas? Nearly a decade since they declared war on the ACA and they STILL have offered absolutely nothing.
On this we agree. The Tea Party sat down and shut up the minute Trump was elected. Suddenly, they are all for everything they railed against for six years. They are as phony as a three dollar bill. There's your "small government" types, RMESMH. They only exist when they are out of power.
One of my points was that moving in the direction you want to is ‘moving forward’ from your perspective, but to some other people that is moving backward because it represents backing away from the principle of limited government.8
At this point, I don’t think either major party represents the ideal of limited government that the founders envisioned.
I’m neither a D nor an R.
I think that Republicans used to be able to pick social issues or being fiscally conservative/+desiring limited government or both as reasons for being a Republican, but after these two budgets that are okay with the White House using the latter as a reason for being a Republican is out the window/is a joke. I think that will hurt the Rs in the long run because people who are social moderates and fiscal conservatives or social liberals but fiscal conservatives will lose interest in the party.
People in their 20's through 50's already pay for Medicare recipients. Medicare recipients only pay about a third of the medical benefits they receive. Calculate a life time contribution into Medicare and compare it to the cost of one heart bypass. And that doesn't include all the medical costs a senior incurs between say 65 and 85-90+.
It is more like 1/2 to 2/3 these days and moving more towards 2/3. And that does include senior OOP HC spending.
If it's supposedly so much cheaper, why doesn't Canada pay for it? Why does 75% of the Canadian population have to buy or earn supplemental private health insurance to pay for what Canadian national health care doesn't cover?
As someone has already stated, this is getting tiring.
It has been explained to you, but you keep posting exactly the SAME post over and over.
Once again, supplemental insurance, covers dental, optometrists, and prescriptions. Most people get this for free through work. I am retired, and on my partners plan through their work.
Everything else is covered, from broken fingers, to brain tumours. No networks, no co-pays, no bills. No filling out forms, no worry about costs.
The fact that if I am not feeling well, and I'm away from my doctors office visiting a friend hundreds of kilometres away from home, and knowing the I can simply go to any clinic, or hospital, and not be worried about them being in network, makes life here a bit more relaxed.
If you are poor in Canada there are programs to pay for your prescriptions etc. In my province it's Pharmacare.
There is also talk about getting a national prescription program to cover all Canadians. It's not even controversial here, because it just makes sense, and Canadians already have experience with UHC and can see the benefits.
The constant lies, about Canada on CD are also tiring. People posting that if you have cancer, you must go the US for care. BLATANT lies. Having known, several people who have gone through multiple cancers, I find the above insulting. Not only to me, but to all the Cancer Centres in Canada and the proffesional excellent care they provide.
Here's some free advice.
Instead of trying to bash or pick at Canadian healthcare, try looking at what works around the world, and start to put together a plan that works for the US. Try to see through the propaganda about UHC. Seriously, people around the world just don't understand why some in the US are fighting so hard against their OWN best interests.
How funny! All of us on Medicare now had to pay into it for 10 years (or our spouses paid in). Now we have to pay premiums for Medicare B, D, etc.
What are you talking about? If you qualify for Social Security, you qualify for Medicare at age 65. Basically you have to have paid in for 40 quarters (10 years).
The other poster that trobesmom (the person you were replying to above) was replying to has ‘free’ (‘zero out of pocket for life’) because he has that through his State of NJ - Police & Fire pension agreement. They weren’t talking about what ‘everybody else/the rest of us’ have at 65+ through Medicare.
It is more like 1/2 to 2/3 these days and moving more towards 2/3. And that does include senior OOP HC spending.
Based on what data? It's not like health care has become cheaper. Bottom line is Medicare recipients have not paid in enough to cover the health benefits they receive. They depend on taxpayers to cover the rest, so this "it's unfair to the elderly" is untrue. The elderly are much expensive and taxpayers are paying for them.
Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.977a39c2bd2d
No, you need to look at it from the perspective of a small business owner. Like SS, the Medicare tax is paid half by the employee and half by the employer. Small business owners pay both halves — it comes out of their pocket.
I accounted for that in my example. $58,000 over 40 years if earning 100k every year. If you are a small business owner double it to $116,000 over 40 years. Neither amount comes close to "well into six figures"
It would also be very difficult to earn 100k per year for 40 years. Most peoples income start low and build over the years.
As someone has already stated, this is getting tiring.
It has been explained to you, but you keep posting exactly the SAME post over and over.
Once again, supplemental insurance, covers dental, optometrists, and prescriptions.
That's exactly the point. Canada's national health care doesn't cover everything. Supplemental private insurance must be bought or earned to cover what Canadian health care does not. Stupid lefty Americans think Medicare for All will cover everything..
Try comprehending this time. I, like Rachel and millions of other small business owners, have paid in TWICE what the average employee pays, because we must pay both the employer side and the employee side of taxes. That means we pay in a hell of a lot more than you probably do.
Capiche?
You are conveniently forgetting that the SS and medicare taxes (aka self employment taxes) are 100% deductible from your gross income. So no you guys are not paying double.
Based on what data? It's not like health care has become cheaper. Bottom line is Medicare recipients have not paid in enough to cover the health benefits they receive. They depend on taxpayers to cover the rest, so this "it's unfair to the elderly" is untrue. The elderly are much expensive and taxpayers are paying for them.
Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.977a39c2bd2d
That may have been true when Medicare was started in 1965. Back then, most women hadn't worked much, mostly not enough to qualify. They were collecting on their husband's earnings because that's how society was then. Plus, a lot of people hadn't paid into Medicare that long. It had only been 30 years since SS was established, and at first a lot of people weren't included, farmers, etc. But by now, most people have fully paid in and lots of us actually have paid in for close to 50 years, since we were 15 or so. Even in my mom's generation (b. 1921) most women worked at least 10 years.
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.
