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.
You are avoiding the question. Would you rather people die by denying them needed medical aid? It doesn't matter their legal status, they are all human beings. Would you rather have them die, that was my question, and you did not answer that.
I'm for Medicare-for-all but we cant just provide healthcare to anyone who shows up at the border. I dont think any country does that. Health care tourism is a big thing, but the health care tourists have to pay for this.
Almost everyone who works contributes to the cost of SS and Medicare for OTHER people who are collecting it now.
They also likely pay towards health insurance premiums for themselves and their families.
Why shouldn't those payments that are already going to Medicare go towards health care access for those who are already contributing to it?
Why should people have to pay twice, particularly when there is no guarantee that they will ever be able to utilize the Medicare that they are paying for NOW?
most working people (70k and below) get back almost all their contributions, including that of payroll tax
Better method is to support your opinion with facts and sources of that information rather than just being angry.
"rather than just being angry"
It is better to KNOW, rather then assume.
P.S I am NOT angry. If you want anger, read lib posts and your own! Youv'e been angry ever since Trump won the election!
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.
If you believe that for a second I have some AZ ocean front land I would be willing to sell you and I don't even own the property nor is it on the COLO river
Dont forget to include the portion that is paid by the employer right now. Its a common trick by the right wing to ignore the portion paid by the employer while including all taxes to fund Medicare-for-all to make it look more expensive.
Also, taxes are progressive. So the "cost for an average family" doesnt take into account that the well heeled will pay more into the Medicare system than ordinary folks.
sorry that I didn't check back in - I'm self-employed so I pay the entire premium.
As a conservative, I support a Medicare for all type system because it would save us all money. Comparing our current system to those systems in all other developed countries, we pay much more and do not receive greater care. If our care was heads and tails superior, then fine, but it isn't. Moreover, it's costing middle-class individuals, particularly those nearing retirement too much, even to the point that some people are having to choose between keeping their home and paying for healthcare.
I have lived abroad and been in so-called socialized medical systems and I will tell you there is often much more freedom within those systems than we see in ours. Currently, through my spouse's employer, we are forced into the Kaiser network, where we must go see the doctor they tell us to see and we have a $10,000 deductible. That is not freedom of choice.
I'm for Medicare-for-all but we cant just provide healthcare to anyone who shows up at the border. I dont think any country does that. Health care tourism is a big thing, but the health care tourists have to pay for this.
So, you would rather let them die?
BTW, yes, medical tourism is big, especially US citizens to Canada, Mexico, Guatemala and Costa Rica.
Would you rather let those members of our human race die? Answer the question.
As a conservative, I support a Medicare for all type system because it would save us all money. Comparing our current system to those systems in all other developed countries, we pay much more and do not receive greater care. If our care was heads and tails superior, then fine, but it isn't. Moreover, it's costing middle-class individuals, particularly those nearing retirement too much, even to the point that some people are having to choose between keeping their home and paying for healthcare.
I have lived abroad and been in so-called socialized medical systems and I will tell you there is often much more freedom within those systems than we see in ours. Currently, through my spouse's employer, we are forced into the Kaiser network, where we must go see the doctor they tell us to see and we have a $10,000 deductible. That is not freedom of choice.
nope it will not save money
I too would be happy with it...but not with knowing the math
MFA (based on what medicare is currently) will not cover long term care (like nursing homes) and will cost about 3.5 trillion annually to cover 330million people (and rising)
MFA (with no deductibles/copays) will cost about 4.75 trillion annually
full coverage singlepayer (including long term care) will cost 6.5-7 trillion annually to cover 330million citizens (plus what ever illegals and normal growth)
when you look at federal taxes (per the IRS) there are about 150 million FILERS, and of that about 45% have a zero or negative tax liability...which means there are only about 80 million tax PAYERS
so when you take the 3.5t/4.75t/6.5-7 trillion ANNUAL cost and divide them by 80m (number of taxpayers
you get:
3.5t / 80m = 43k per taxpayer
4.75t / 80m = 59.3k
6.5t / 80m = 81.2k
I don't know about you...but the median household making 63,000 is not going to be able to afford a tax bill of 81k or 59k or 43k
As a conservative, I support a Medicare for all type system because it would save us all money. Comparing our current system to those systems in all other developed countries, we pay much more and do not receive greater care. If our care was heads and tails superior, then fine, but it isn't. Moreover, it's costing middle-class individuals, particularly those nearing retirement too much, even to the point that some people are having to choose between keeping their home and paying for healthcare.
I have lived abroad and been in so-called socialized medical systems and I will tell you there is often much more freedom within those systems than we see in ours. Currently, through my spouse's employer, we are forced into the Kaiser network, where we must go see the doctor they tell us to see and we have a $10,000 deductible. That is not freedom of choice.
Most opposed to a single payer system don't understand this. As a Canadian, I have complete choice of my doctor (in fact, I just changed mine... took me about 20 minutes to do so, and I live in a remote rural area).
I just got back from my 6 months of being a snowbird, and had a persistent cough and sinus issues. I phoned on Monday, was in Tuesday morning, my bloodwork and x-rays are at my doctors this morning, and I got a phone call of followup.
Try that in the USA. My girlfriend who works for one of the top three healthcare insurance companies in the USA was transferred, and she could not find a doctor who was in the network since March, and had to see a nurse practitioner instead. If she can't find one, with her job (which approves claims by those network doctors), imagine someone else trying to get a primary care doctor? You can't imagine the horror stories I hear from her. Pre-approvals needed for serious conditions? Give me a break!!!
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.
front land I would be willing to sell you and I don't even own the property nor is it on the COLO river
