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.
Government isn't your mommy or daddy, wetnurse or baby-sitter. How much suffering at the hands of socialism does it take to wake you up.
Oh, yeah? Socialism? I'll tell you what "socialism" is. It is paying 1 trillion + for "defense" when the debt is 22 trillion ( or whatever). Let me know if you have any questions.
Why anyone would want their healthcare tied to their current job or seek jobs based on health benefits is beyond me. Medicare for all would be a huge boost to the economy as employers no longer need to flip the bill for healthcare so now, they actually have to provide monetary incentives to employees, in the form of raises, instead of offering more "health benefits." Not to mention, ppl would be free to pursue jobs they want, or start businesses without having to worry about buying healthcare at ridiculous prices.
employers will not have extra money , as they will be paying astronomical taxes..you will not see a raise, you will see less in your check
Why anyone would want their healthcare tied to their current job or seek jobs based on health benefits is beyond me. Medicare for all would be a huge boost to the economy as employers no longer need to flip the bill for healthcare so now, they actually have to provide monetary incentives to employees, in the form of raises, instead of offering more "health benefits." Not to mention, ppl would be free to pursue jobs they want, or start businesses without having to worry about buying healthcare at ridiculous prices.
The ACA was supposed to do this. Why would we now need Medicare for all?
I'd say "some" not "they" limit . . . Some doctors practices are mainly Medicare patients. After all, we do get sicker as we get older.
Exactly! I paid in for ~45 years. I had just turned 16 when Medicare was passed into law. And you (or your spouse) MUST pay in for at least 10 years. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but I'm talking about the average retiree. So I don't know how this is going to work.
***
It is calculated that the average man, woman and child consumes ~$10K per annum in health care. It's obvious that a $2000/yr tax will not pay for a worker and his/her dependents. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...345-per-person
I favor a UHC for many reasons, particularly equity. I think health care should be provided, just like education is. However, I have no illusions that it will be cheap. Some of the proposed plans call for no deductibles, no co-pays, inclusion of dental and nursing home. This is going to be expensive. And if minimum wage is raised, as it should be, that will raise the wages of many health care workers, particularly CNAs, CMAs, phlebotomists, all the "entry-level" type jobs in health care. It will also put inflationary pressure on RNs and LPNs. It's not going to be cheap, or even inexpensive.
nope not cheap at all...
a tue single payer will cost at least 6 trillion annually....and add a trillion if they cover nursing homes and long term care(which medicare does NOT cover)
number of americans in full pledged nursing homes: 2.5 million...... the average cost Adult Day Health Care,.20,000 per year......assisted living facility 45,000 per year....nursing home (semi-private room),.85,000 per year.......nursing home (private room),.96,000
number of americans in all levels of nursing homes and assisted living....12 million (Annually 11,995,100 people receive support from the 5 main long-term care service; home health agencies (5,742,500), nursing homes (2,383,700), hospices (1,544,500), residential care communities (913,300) and adult day service centers (373,200)...............total cost of long term care 1.1 trillion annually...and going up every year ………………………...and medicare (the government) REFUSES to cover it...
Oh, yeah? Socialism? I'll tell you what "socialism" is. It is paying 1 trillion + for "defense" when the debt is 22 trillion ( or whatever). Let me know if you have any questions.
defense is actually in the constitution....heathcare is not
Canada is privatizing, as their NHC is facing major cuts to stay afloat
Your premise is faulty from the start. Canada has no NHS, or equivalent.
"NHS" stands for "National Health System." Canadian health care is not administered at the national level (or as we Canadians would call it, the federal level). It is administered at the provincial level. You know, those bodies we have that are like states? Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia and Quebec and Manitoba, and so on? They're in charge of Canadians' healthcare, not the federal government.
But just because I'm curious--could you provide cites to your assertion that "Canada's national healthcare is privatizing because it is facing cuts"? I've heard nothing about this in Canadian news media, and it would be big news if it were indeed true. It's hard to believe cuts are being made to something that doesn't exist, but I'm willing to be educated. Prove your assertion to me, using solid, reputable Canadian cites.
I believe a better question would be:
"Should the government be involved in ANY manner of a person's health care or health care insurance?" Yes or No.
My answer would be, "No".
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
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.
