U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 06:54 PM
 
1,915 posts, read 485,061 times
Reputation: 1727

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83 View Post
And still 30+ other 1st world nations manages to do it.. in many instances for 90+ years.

Republicans: "Americans are to lazy and stupid to make it work.. Our country is not advanced enough to make anything work. Its IMPOSSIBLE... We will never be able to save $Trillions like those other countries do... because we can´t.."

What happened to US ingenuity and guts...
Private insurance companies don't want to change the status quo. Republicans are there to make sure it doesn't change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 05:22 AM
 
37,682 posts, read 16,323,447 times
Reputation: 8555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli34 View Post
Private insurance companies don't want to change the status quo. Republicans are there to make sure it doesn't change.
"Republicans are there to make sure it doesn't change.'
I would say you are naive but I don't think so, just pure partisan is better. But go ahead spouting your lies about ONLY the repubs.

"Which 2020 Democrats Are Taking Money From the Healthcare Industry?
"No Democratic candidate has pulled in more from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries than Biden"
by
Karl Evers-Hillstrom, Jessica Piper

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 presidential candidate, joins hospital workers, union members, and local politicians in protest against the imminent closure of Hahnemann University Hospital at a rally in Philadelphia on July 15, 2019. (Photo: Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on fellow Democratic presidential candidates to reject contributions from the healthcare industry this week, a renewed effort to distinguish himself from a progressive field that has often adopted his policy positions.
The Vermont senator’s announcement came days after campaigns filed their second quarter finance reports, which showed that a number of the 2020 presidential candidates, including Sanders, had accepted contributions from healthcare and pharmaceutical executives.
The pledge states that Sanders will not take “contributions over $200 from the PACs, lobbyists, or executives of health insurance or pharmaceutical companies.” During the second quarter, his campaign received thousands from these donors, including a $2,800 contribution from a lobbyist at Beacon Health Options, $2,000 from the CEO of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and $1,000 each from two Pfizer executives, according to an OpenSecrets review of FEC filings.
Sanders, whose campaign has said it will refund past contributions that do not comply with the pledge, was not the only candidate to receive contributions from the healthcare industry during the second quarter.
FEC filings suggest that most of the 2020 Democratic hopefuls received at least one contribution from a healthcare or pharmaceutical executive. One executive at Missouri health insurer Centene gave at least $1,250 each to Sanders, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and former Vice President Joe Biden.
[CENTER]Donations from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries
Infogram
[/CENTER]


No Democratic candidate has pulled in more from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries than Biden, who raised more than $97,000. The former vice president took in more than $11,000 from affiliates of industry giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield, including the maximum $2,800 from Daniel Hilferty, CEO of Independence Blue Cross who sits on the board of a major health insurance trade group that is fighting to defeat Sanders’ Medicare for All healthcare plan.
Buttigieg is runner-up, taking home nearly $94,000. His list of donors includes executives from Aetna, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Indiana’s Eli Lilly & Co. The Midwestern mayor has questioned the merits of Medicare for All, but has also put forth his own plan, Medicare for Those Who Want It, which the healthcare industry also opposes.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rounds out the top three, taking more than $65,000. She’s received $39,000 from employees at Medtronic, the world’s largest medical device company that has its U.S. headquarters in Minnesota, as well as the maximum $2,800 from executives at private insurers UnitedHealthcare and Medica.
Biden and Klobuchar have panned Sanders’ healthcare plan as being unrealistic at this time, introducing their own proposals to instead incrementally expand healthcare coverage and reduce drug prices.
Harris, along with Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), is among the cosponsors of Sanders’ Medicare for All bill in the Senate, though all three have said they don’t support the Vermont senator’s proposal to eliminate private health insurance.
Harris has accepted $55,000 from pharmaceutical companies this cycle. Her donors include employees of Roche Holdings, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer.
Gillibrand, who was criticized by progresive groups earlier this year for attending a fundraiser hosted by Pfizer executive Sally Susman, has received $39,500 in contributions from the healthcare industry this election cycle.
Booker announced in 2017 that he would put a “pause” on taking contributions from pharmaceutical companies after accepting $161,000 from their PACs during the 2014 election cycle. The New Jersey senator has stuck to his promise not to accept corporate PAC money during his presidential run. But he has taken $35,000 from healthcare industry employees, including a $2,800 contribution from a GlaxoSmithKline executive during the second quarter.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has received plenty of contributions from the healthcare industry over the years despite her endorsement of Medicare for All and her call to send executives to jail for their role in the opioid crisis. Between 2013 and 2018, she took $428,395 from healthcare-related industries. Although the Massachusetts senator has eschewed traditional fundraisers during her presidential run, she has received $44,000 in contributions from the same industries this cycle.


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...hcare-industry

Last edited by Quick Enough; Today at 05:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Ohio
20,144 posts, read 14,362,716 times
Reputation: 16333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83 View Post
And still 30+ other 1st world nations manages to do it.. in many instances for 90+ years.
I can see you're still living in the Dark Ages.

The unfunded liabilities for the Euro-States that you think are success stories is astronomical.

Some Euro-States like Italy owe 300% of GDP, which is unsustainable no matter how much they tax the snot out of people and businesses.

Why don't we talk about France?

Used to be your typical Frenchman would work 35 years and retiring with a salary of 80,000 Euros/year he'd get a pension of 40,000 Euros/year.

Except France can no longer pay for that.

Now the French have to work 7 years longer than Americans -- 42 years -- or 8 years if you're born 1973 or later in order to get a pension of 40,000 Euros/year based on a salary of 80,000 Euros/year.

But, not any more.

In addition to increasing the retirement age and the number of years required to work to get a pension, France slashed pensions from 50% to 37.5%.

Instead of a pension of 40,000 Euros/year, that man now gets 30,000 Euros/year.

And still France can't pay for it.

France is going to end up slashing pensions further to 32.5% or 27.5%.

So, instead of 30,000 Euros/year it'll be 26,000 or 22,000 Euros/year.

France can't pay for its healthcare, either.

France will end up slashing healthcare benefits, or doing more of what they already do, which is delay medical treatment, or dilute medical treatment so that it's ineffective or deny medical treatment, and yes Euro-States deny treatment to people.

Germany claims its unfunded liabilities are only 80% of GDP, but a number of independent sources, including the Market Economy Foundation and the EU Central Bank put it at 276% and 228% of GDP respectively.

Germany will have to raise taxes and still slash pensions and healthcare.

All Euro-States will have to slash pensions and healthcare and raise taxes and they still won't be able to pay the benefits they promised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:25 AM
 
3,922 posts, read 1,862,585 times
Reputation: 3904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's not going to be enough.

In 2018, you collected $718,352,276,376 in FICA payroll taxes.

That would be total taxable wages of $5,793,163,519,161 ($5.8 TRILLION).

4.0% = $231,726,540,766
7.5% = $434,487,263,937

Total = $666,213,804,703

That leaves you $2,633,786,195,297 short ($2.6 TRILLION).

In before some ignoramus who doesn't know what they're talking about screams, "Eliminate the cap!" taxing 100% of wages without a cap would only generate an extra $62.5 Billion annually.

So, that's not going to get it.

Granted, Medicare spending is $706 Billion and Medicaid spending is $582 Billion and together they account for $1.28 TRILLION, but Medicare-for-All is suppose to eliminate both programs.

Even if you continue to operate those programs, you're still $1.3 TRILLION short.

More to the point, the costs will actually be more than $4 TRILLION.

Why?

Two reasons, one Medicare-for-All covers a number of services that are not currently covered and which are not counted as healthcare expenditures, and two, Americans are nothing like Europeans and the only thing Americans know how to do is be abusive when it comes to "free."

So, that will balloon your costs a minimum of $500 Billion annually to as much as $2 TRILLION annually, so that you're spending $5 TRILLION on healthcare instead of $3.3 TRILLION.

We know that from history. When the government implemented a $10 co-pay for civilian dependents of military personnel, suddenly medical facilities were empty and soldiers could actually be treated and costs dropped like a rock.

If you have to pay $10, it's not "free" anymore and it's not worth it to go to the doctor.

Same thing with the VA's new urgent care program. You have people going to the emergency room for a cough or a sore throat, because, you know, it's "free" and you get "free stuff" like "free" cough medicine or "free" throat lozenges.


Note that the most recent incarnation of Medicare-for-All has eliminated all co-pays.




Why would it?

There's nothing that can be done.

Open a word-processing program and type the following 3rd Grade Concept over and over until you understand:

All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons.

When you understand that, do let us know, then we can move onto the next 3rd Grade Concept:

Not all doctors or surgeons are teachers.

When you understand that, let us know.
But all dumb factory workers are high tech sector people just waiting to blossom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:40 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
10,216 posts, read 8,184,585 times
Reputation: 4372
Health insurance is 12% of payroll at my main job. Im sure the owner would love that.

Still does nothing on the cost end. Big pharma and big hospitals will always OWN congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:46 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
10,216 posts, read 8,184,585 times
Reputation: 4372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's not going to be enough.

In 2018, you collected $718,352,276,376 in FICA payroll taxes.

That would be total taxable wages of $5,793,163,519,161 ($5.8 TRILLION).

4.0% = $231,726,540,766
7.5% = $434,487,263,937

Total = $666,213,804,703

That leaves you $2,633,786,195,297 short ($2.6 TRILLION).

In before some ignoramus who doesn't know what they're talking about screams, "Eliminate the cap!" taxing 100% of wages without a cap would only generate an extra $62.5 Billion annually.

So, that's not going to get it.

Granted, Medicare spending is $706 Billion and Medicaid spending is $582 Billion and together they account for $1.28 TRILLION, but Medicare-for-All is suppose to eliminate both programs.

Even if you continue to operate those programs, you're still $1.3 TRILLION short.

More to the point, the costs will actually be more than $4 TRILLION.

Why?

Two reasons, one Medicare-for-All covers a number of services that are not currently covered and which are not counted as healthcare expenditures, and two, Americans are nothing like Europeans and the only thing Americans know how to do is be abusive when it comes to "free."

So, that will balloon your costs a minimum of $500 Billion annually to as much as $2 TRILLION annually, so that you're spending $5 TRILLION on healthcare instead of $3.3 TRILLION.

We know that from history. When the government implemented a $10 co-pay for civilian dependents of military personnel, suddenly medical facilities were empty and soldiers could actually be treated and costs dropped like a rock.

If you have to pay $10, it's not "free" anymore and it's not worth it to go to the doctor.

Same thing with the VA's new urgent care program. You have people going to the emergency room for a cough or a sore throat, because, you know, it's "free" and you get "free stuff" like "free" cough medicine or "free" throat lozenges.


Note that the most recent incarnation of Medicare-for-All has eliminated all co-pays.
We disagree but I love a nice logical numerical argument.

Any idea how much a $25 doctor $50 specialist copay and a hospitalization deductible of 2000 would change the numbers?

copays and deductibles are important gatekeepers to frivolous use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:38 PM
 
21,217 posts, read 14,042,469 times
Reputation: 14790
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
I thought the rich were going to pay for it ?
Did Bernie change his mind ?

A mere 5 days ago:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berni...184145968.html
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said the U.S. could afford universal healthcare, canceling student debt and making tuition free at public colleges— by slapping higher taxes on wealthy individuals and big companies in order to pay for it all.
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money."

Margaret Thatcher
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:41 PM
Status: "white culture is like living with radiation -IS" (set 13 days ago)
 
921 posts, read 164,853 times
Reputation: 554
no thank you burn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:44 PM
 
1,345 posts, read 270,990 times
Reputation: 1694
Bernie thinks this can be done nationally via 11.5% tax shared between employer/employee ?

Did he even read over where Vermont was before they declared failure ?
They were up to 21% shared between employer/employee and it still wasn't enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:10 PM
 
7,050 posts, read 1,499,959 times
Reputation: 17448
When I was eligible for Medicare, the problem I had was finding a doctor who would accept it. I called seven different physician offices before someone finally was kind enough to refer me to a clinic who takes Medicare.

So, what guarantee would there be that there would be enough physicians who would accept all the extra Medicare patients?

(I live in a fairly affluent section of metro Denver, btw.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top