"For Our White Friends Desiring to Be Allies"

[JD8]

Nah, complete control would be like the VA or the British NHS. Medicare is different.

I reject this all or nothing fallacy.

I'm not a conservative, I'm an American.

The problem is that people want to identify themselves with a label and make that part of their identity. Then some folks engage in confirmation bias. They're a conservative, this is what we believe and they seek out people like Ben Shapiro to give unsubstantiated bullshick to justify the conclusion they reached before going in.

Ben's points, along with others here, that say the same things, pretty much destroy any "logic" put forth by yourself. Believing that some sort of "medicare" for all will work is to be ignorant of the current system. Again, it's funded for years and you still pay a premium, it only covers 80% and you still pay for meds. In the land of give me free stuff and I'm entitled to your service... how does one intend to pay for the massive costs of adding more coverage and a larger demographic? Fairy dust and Unicorn farts?

 

[Dale00]

There is much angst associated with this issue. It seems inherently unjust that some be denied lifesaving care.

That is the dynamic that drives this.

 

[YukonGlocker]

The problem is that people want to identify themselves with a label and make that part of their identity. Then some folks engage in confirmation bias. They're a conservative, this is what we believe and they seek out people like Ben Shapiro to give unsubstantiated bullshick to justify the conclusion they reached before going in.

Yep, and this is called 'identity fusion' in the literature...a brief description here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_fusion.

 

[YukonGlocker]

how does one intend to pay for the massive costs of adding more coverage and a larger demographic? Fairy dust and Unicorn farts?

Nope, it's clearly outlined exactly how in the single-payer proposals that I and others have linked here on OSA (although mine were in other threads, on the same topic).

 

[TerryMiller]

I think some here are getting the wrong idea of Medicare, so let me clue those people to reality.

Those of us on Medicare pay for Part B out of our Social Security retirement benefits. Medicare Part A is hospitalization and is free, but in order to be able to go to the doctor's office, one needs Part B. If a doctor treats one in a hospital, then I suspect that his bill must be paid by Part B. In addition to paying from our Social Security for Part B, if we want a supplement, than we also get to pay for that as well. With a supplement, I can be treated just about anywhere. Before we came to Oregon, I had signed up for a Medicare Advantage plan, which was a mistake because with Medicare Advantage, I had no coverage here in Oregon. It would have only been good in Colorado.

So, "Medicare for all" is a misnomer.

In addition, for those so enamored with Obumbacare, it wasn't good for my wife. When we retired, she wasn't 65 (and still isn't yet,) so no Medicare for her. Looking into the O-care exchanges, the best she could find was a plan that required her to pay $250 per month ($3000 per year) and then have a $10,000 deductible. So, she would have had to have paid $13,000 before O-care did anything for her. Not having the health issues that could have reached that number, she chose to "self-pay" and pay the O-care penalty. Fortunately, we were advised of a good source of discounts for medications called GoodRX.com, which does quite well financially for most prescriptions. We also found that some health care providers give a good discount for those paying outright.

 

[operator742]

Nah, complete control would be like the VA or the British NHS. Medicare is different.

I reject this all or nothing fallacy.

I'm not a conservative, I'm an American.

The problem is that people want to identify themselves with a label and make that part of their identity. Then some folks engage in confirmation bias. They're a conservative, this is what we believe and they seek out people like Ben Shapiro to give unsubstantiated bullshick to justify the conclusion they reached before going in.

Why exempt roads and bridges? Why not let the free market decide?

Your right toll roads work just fine for me, Medicare is for 65 and older or those who are disabled, Medicaid is for low income families,so what you are proposing is neither. So a single payer insurance for everyone would be something completely new,and a government committee would have complete oversight of what treatments a patient would receive.

 

[Frederick]

USA healthcare outcomes: 72nd

Canadian healthcare outcomes: 35th.

Source

USA spends 2 and a half times the OECD average

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

So it's clear from documented evidence that Canada has better outcomes than the U.S. but spends significantly less for it than we do.

Will healthcare costs be controlled and rationed? Yes, but that's how you keep costs low and provide coverage to everyone at an affordable rate.

No one will be denied treatment he or she needs as some here suggest. They have a system similar to medicare in Canada, and yet they have longer life expectancy and better health outcomes than we do. At a fraction of the cost.

How do i propose we pay for it? By charging 500 a year to the average family in taxation. 500 a year for healthcare, crazy thought, huh?they pay 120 a year on average in Canada. If you don't earn enough, you don't pay a dime. the average U.S. family today spends 5k a year on medical insurance, and that's through an employer.

I understand how medicare works, but it would be expanded to pay for everything with no copays. Canada isn't even the best single-payer country in the world, either. But it's still far better than what we have here in the U.S.

Would you not be able to get your unnecessary care covered? Sure, but you act like you could get it now. I guess you could if you had a **** ton of money and paid out of pocket, but unless it's necessary, your insurance probably won't cover it anyway unless it's mandated.

Even if you need it, your insurance still might decide to try to fight you on it and not cover you anyway, as we've seen with more expensive patients. Oh, and 'Odumbocare' sure did get rid of all those lifetime limits. It would suck to get cancer, end up spending your 100 grand lifetime limit in a few months and then be on the hook for whatever care after that. Should have earned your millions like a responsible adult so you could buy those experimental cancer treatments that your insurance won't pay for because it's "experimental".

 

[deerwhacker444]

USA healthcare outcomes: 72nd

Canadian healthcare outcomes: 35th.

Source

USA spends 2 and a half times the OECD average

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

So it's clear from documented evidence that Canada has better outcomes than the U.S. but spends significantly less for it than we do.

Will healthcare costs be controlled and rationed? Yes, but that's how you keep costs low and provide coverage to everyone at an affordable rate.

No one will be denied treatment he or she needs as some here suggest. They have a system similar to medicare in Canada, and yet they have longer life expectancy and better health outcomes than we do. At a fraction of the cost.

How do i propose we pay for it? By charging 500 a year to the average family in taxation. 500 a year for healthcare, crazy thought, huh?they pay 120 a year on average in Canada. If you don't earn enough, you don't pay a dime. the average U.S. family today spends 5k a year on medical insurance, and that's through an employer.

I understand how medicare works, but it would be expanded to pay for everything with no copays. Canada isn't even the best single-payer country in the world, either. But it's still far better than what we have here in the U.S.

Would you not be able to get your unnecessary care covered? Sure, but you act like you could get it now. I guess you could if you had a **** ton of money and paid out of pocket, but unless it's necessary, your insurance probably won't cover it anyway unless it's mandated.

Even if you need it, your insurance still might decide to try to fight you on it and not cover you anyway, as we've seen with more expensive patients. Oh, and 'Odumbocare' sure did get rid of all those lifetime limits. It would suck to get cancer, end up spending your 100 grand lifetime limit in a few months and then be on the hook for whatever care after that. Should have earned your millions like a responsible adult so you could buy those experimental cancer treatments that your insurance won't pay for because it's "experimental".

I can't tell if this post is a joke or if this is serious...

 

[chuter]

The argument for preventative care saving money; think again.

It may be true for an individual, but when you're talking about overall costs for 300 million people, it's not true.
Because a lot of people won't get the illness that they got preventative care for.

Check it out:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

 

[operator742]

I can't tell if this post is a joke or if this is serious...

He sure has more faith in our government then I do,but then maybe it's because I remember my ancestors that were stripped of their homelands,and forced to march the Trail of Tears into southeastern Oklahoma. I also remember all the broken treaties to the other nations across this country. So y'all go ahead and trust the government if you want,but history has proven you shouldn't.

And as far as Google facts goes, if you search long enough you can find so called facts to back either side of this disagreement .