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.
That would necessitate that some people will not be served. CURRENT costs are $3.4T. Add the 30 million non-elderly uninsured to M4A, and that cost will increase. I disagree. There is not a single analysis of M4A that shows the cost remaining the same or decreasing. They all project massive cost increases from Bernie's $32T to Elizabeth Warren's $52T over 10 years.
We would have to ration health care to do so, just like the other countries do. Long wait lists for needed health care. Etc.
Yet, in your multiple previous posts you (correctly) noted that medicare reimbursement rates are lower. Now, you claim that the overall cost will increase to the point of more than doubling just because the currently uninsured are added. Math does not work that way, sorry.
That would necessitate that some people will not be served. CURRENT costs are $3.4T. Add the 30 million non-elderly uninsured to M4A, and that cost will increase. I disagree. There is not a single analysis of M4A that shows the cost remaining the same or decreasing. They all project massive cost increases from Bernie's $32T to Elizabeth Warren's $52T over 10 years.
I never said M4A, I only said single-payer. The two are very different.
Yet, in your multiple previous posts you (correctly) noted that medicare reimbursement rates are lower. Now, you claim that the overall cost will increase to the point of more than doubling just because the currently uninsured are added. Math does not work that way, sorry.
Actually, it does. The Urban Institute (left-wing think tank) does a good job of explaining why in their analysis of Bernie's M4A:
Quote:
"The increase in federal expenditures would be considerably larger than the increase in national health expenditures because substantial spending borne by states, employers, and households under current law would shift to the federal government under the Sanders [Medicare for All] plan. Federal expenditures in 2017 would increase by $1.9 trillion for acute care for the nonelderly, by $465.9 billion for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare, and by $212.1 billion for long-term services and supports.
In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026. The increase in federal spending is so large because the federal government would absorb a substantial amount of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and households."
Right-wingers still trying too fool people that when the US allready spend 17% of its GDP on healthcare compared to 9-11% of ALL other 1st world nations... doing the same thing as all those 30+ countries, the US would suddenly be spending 25% of its GDP on Healthcare.
No.. you would save 5-8% of your GDP...
And all those "Cadillac" insurance BS Unions got through their companies and they won't vote for a Democrat BS.
Yeah, those Cadillacs can be taken away in 5 sec flat from the management!!!
Just like GM did, when their workers went on strike a few months back...
Trusting you company with your families healthcare insurance is IDIOTIC and seriously economical backwards way of doing things!!!!!!!
Right-wingers still trying too fool people that when the US allready spend 17% of its GDP on healthcare compared to 9-11% of ALL other 1st world nations... doing the same thing as all those 30+ countries, the US would suddenly be spending 25% of its GDP on Healthcare.
Why doesn't the US just tax like those other countries so we can have universal health care? To see how other countries tax and spend on redistributive social programs for the greater good:
You can't mandate private citizens (MDs, etc.) into forced labor. That's unconstitutional.
You can make it mandatory to accept Medicare patients without extra fees added on if its not selective and applies to all health care providers. The health care providers then have option to stop offering such. In other words shut down their business. No forced labor, its just that you either sh** or get off the pot. Entirely your choice. Same as paying taxes. You always have option to reduce your income to point there is zero tax on it. You choose to make more than that, you pay taxes or go to jail or bribe a Republican congresscritter.
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.
