46 Percent of Republicans Want Medicare for All ? (companies, dollars, party)
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.
yeah if you want to call Countries with Universal Healthcare "socialist", lol
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Belgium
Brunei
Canada
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Singapore
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
is everyone paying? No? then it's another welfare program.
"I am actually not opposed to a national healthcare system if set up well."
What agency has done things WELL"?
What agency has NOT expanded from its original charter?
What agency has NOT INCREASED its budget EVERY YEAR?
What agency is NOT wrought with waste, fraud and abuse?
Having been with BOTH defense and non-defense agencies, 25% could be cut from everyone of them WITHOUT ANY decrease in serving the country and it's recipients.
$68 BILLION a YEAR for a Dept. of Education, for WHAT? Especially since education is NOT even a fed responsibility.
Here try this....
What private heath insurance company has done things "WELL"?
What private heath insurance company has NOT expanded from its original charter?
What private heath insurance company has NOT MASSIVELY INCREASED its rates EVERY YEAR?
What private heath insurance company is NOT wrought with waste, fraud, dodging paying claims, and customer abuse?
We can have a functioning health care system without massive taxation if we take all the money we, as employees, put into private health insurers pockets, all the money our employers put into private health insurers pockets together with all the money we pay in co-pays, deductibles and out of pocket expenses and we put all this together into a common insurance pool, like we do with, oh I don't know, house insurance, car insurance or many other form of insurance. I trust the government a whole load more than a private for-profit health insurer when it comes to accessible healthcare. The government won't have the same incentive to NOT pay out as every single health insurer does. Quite honestly, the worst idea in the world is putting a private for-profit company between you and a healthcare provider. It's diametrically opposed to the outcome you should achieve in this situation.
I think England has a medical system that is similar to Medicare. It works, but has inefficiencies; its probably not the best approach. Something like the well-respected Dutch model may work better for this country. At any rate, I'd prefer an evidence-based approach to modifying the medical establishment, rather than just a random political experiment that may or may not work. We should be looking at foreign models and seeing which approaches would work best here.
Great Britain has the National Health System ( NHS) which is really 4 systems. Generally, there is no out of pocket cost for medical services.
Most providers are government employees and most hospitals are operated by NHS.
In contrast, Medicare requires co-pays and co-insurance payments.
Providers are employed within the private sector.
Most hospitals in the US are private. The largest hospital system is a for-profit, publicly-traded, HCA Healthcare System with 185 hospitals.
I'm sure you're aware that countries tax regressively, very unlike the US's progressive tax system, to fund universal healthcare, correct? Read and learn:
Not to mention those countries also make damn sure only their citizens get the benefits, and also make it difficult to become a citizen in those countries. Right now with so many in congress lobbying for open borders and amnesty for illegals, we simply cannot afford universal health care until we stop the mass immigration.
Have you ever worked for the government? There's NO WAY it is competent enough to run a medicare for all system.
What does " run" mean?
Medicare enrollees use private providers who have agreed to accept Medicare's reimbursement rates. Providers are not required to accept Medicare reimbursement. Most do. And most cap the number of Medicare patients within their practice.
If everything stays the same as it is right now, the combined healthcare spending by private and public sectors is projected to reach $45 trillion by 2026.
The libertarian-oriented Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimated that the cost of Medicare for All would be more than $32 trillion over a 10-year period.
Kenneth Thorpe, a health finance expert at Emory University looked at a version of Sanders’ Medicare for All during the 2016 campaign and estimated that the cost would be about $25 trillion over 10 years.
In order to pay for the program, Sanders has suggested redirecting current government spending of about $2 trillion per year into Medicare for All. To do that, he would raise taxes on incomes over $250,000, reaching a 52 percent marginal rate on incomes over $10 million. He also suggested a wealth tax on the top 0.1 % of households.
since a balanced budget is less than $4T, "redirecting" 40% or more of that seems untenable.
What private heath insurance company has done things "WELL"?
What private heath insurance company has NOT expanded from its original charter?
What private heath insurance company has NOT MASSIVELY INCREASED its rates EVERY YEAR?
What private heath insurance company is NOT wrought with waste, fraud, dodging paying claims, and customer abuse?
We can have a functioning health care system without massive taxation if we take all the money we, as employees, put into private health insurers pockets, all the money our employers put into private health insurers pockets together with all the money we pay in co-pays, deductibles and out of pocket expenses and we put all this together into a common insurance pool, like we do with, oh I don't know, house insurance, car insurance or many other form of insurance. I trust the government a whole load more than a private for-profit health insurer when it comes to accessible healthcare. The government won't have the same incentive to NOT pay out as every single health insurer does. Quite honestly, the worst idea in the world is putting a private for-profit company between you and a healthcare provider. It's diametrically opposed to the outcome you should achieve in this situation.
no doubt, government-mandated access would be higher access. I man, under the ACA, every plan covers pregnancy - even for men and women who have already undergone menopause.
However, none of the other "common" pools you speak of are actually uniform at all. A 60 year old with heart medications isn't getting close to the same life insurance rate as a 30 year old with no medical issues. I wonder - how many of these types of insurance do you carry?
Seems like half of republicans are eager for socialism! Who would have thunk it.
plot twist, we're already socialist
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.
