U.S. House Democrats introduce sweeping 'Medicare for All' bill

[Jonnapat]

And no doubt they will be labelled Socialists for daring to suggest health care for all citizens. 

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Just so we’re clear - you think it’s the rebublicans fault that Obamacare was such a democrat failure, and that same party is now going for Medicare for all? 

 

Baiting attempt IGNORE. Don't bother trying again. 

 

I was replying to your point about why some people don't have access to life saving meds.

One large reason is lack of Medicaid expansion in many republican controlled states. That was a big part of Obamacare. 

 

I presented a fact about that and all you've got is deflection. 

[connda]

The beauty about Medicare is that it still leaves a 'covered' open to bankruptcy.  Given the US has the highest health care prices in the world, if you have heart problems or some other major medical incident, you could end up completely bankrupted by the 20% deductible you need to pay.  And then there is the drug coverage that basically saddles the covered individual with the lions share of the cost of drugs.

Well, that is unless you purchase the various Medi-Gap coverage from private insurers.  If private insurers are guaranteed a stake in the action this may actually fly.  This is less about caring for the health care of the American people and more about enriching companies who would directly benefit by the legislation. 
However, one of Polosi's cabinet is on record telling the healthcare industry that Medicare of All is a non-starter.  So, my guess is that it's all 2020 political campaigning and ultimately a public fluff job.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, longtom said:

Whilst i like the genral idea (everybody must get healthcare in a civilized country, period), why does it have to be medicare for all?
Look at the Switzerland model, everybody must have healthcare, but from private insurers! If you can't pay the premiums, governement steps in (social security).
This way the americans can keep their beloved private companies, there is still competition amongst insurers, but they cannot refute anybody!
I think that would better fit the US than a NHS model.



Sent from my SM-J250F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Public/Private programs do not and will not work in the US unless there are accompanying campaign finance reform policies and an end to revolving door between regulators and the regulated. Most politicians are "bought", most agencies are "captured"  Also programs that reward some while penalizing others aren't going to work in the long run either. You've got to put everybody in the same boat, and if some find they want more than what's offered they can go pay for it themselves. 

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Baiting attempt IGNORE. Don't bother trying again. 

 

I was replying to your point about why some people don't have access to life saving meds.

One large reason is lack of Medicaid expansion in many republican controlled states. That was a big part of Obamacare. 

 

I presented a fact about that and all you've got is deflection. 

 

No sir, the deflection was you injecting what republicans do in their own states as the problem with Obamacare, or one of “the many problems”. Trying to hang blame by deflection in a thread where your own party is admitting to its failure by promoting Medicare for all. And you don’t even know wheather the people who are “literally dying” are from red states or not. 

 

You can leave republicans out of it. Democrats own Obamacare and it’s failure, and you better believe the right is going to beat them over the head about it, constantly. 

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

No sir, the deflection was you injecting what republicans do in their own states as the problem with Obamacare, or one of “the many problems”. Trying to hang blame by deflection in a thread where your own party is admitting to its failure by promoting Medicare for all. And you don’t even know wheather the people who are “literally dying” are from red states or not. 

 

You can leave republicans out of it. Democrats own Obamacare and it’s failure, and you better believe the right is going to beat them over the head about it, constantly. 

What a load.

The truth is Americans overwhelmingly support the principles of Obamacare (which was only sold as a possible step in the right direction) which are --

 

All Americans deserve access to healthcare

Private insurance companies should not discriminate based on preexisting conditions

 

Nobody has said Obamacare (even without the disgusting murderous obstruction not expanding Medicaid which was not supposed to be possible in the original law but the supreme court made it possible) is perfect or without major flaws.

 

The idea is to at least fix the flaws, much better yet go to something better, but NOT to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[Thainesss]

32 minutes ago, Chippy151 said:

Or you can continue the way it is.

No universal health care.

Just like lots of third world countries.

 

Didnt hear anything about equating the USA to a third world country when the left wanted Obamacare to pass. Now that it’s a failure we’re a third world country? 

[ricklev]

3 hours ago, Trouble said:

 

Great to propose a program but nothing specific about paying for it.  I believe the estimated cost of Bernie's Medicare for all is about $1.4 trillion a year. 2018 Budget is about 4.094 Trillion, revenue 3.654 Trillion, deficit of 440 billion. So let's add another 1.4 trillion to  the deficit.  There is just no way to tax to pay for another 1.4 trillion. Taking this a step further 45% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.  Top 20% pay almost 87% of all federal income taxes. Wonder how much these people think they can squeeze out of 20% of the people?

 

With the new tax laws for 2018 there are not many loopholes left to close.  The few loopholes left for individual tax payers help stimulate investment. Start screwing with that and it could seriously dry up investment.  They had better be really careful about what they propose.

Where does the money for the endless wars come ftom?  Where does the money for the tax cuts for the wealthy come from?  

[attrayant]

 

7 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

You can leave republicans out of it.

 

No, we won't be doing that.  Sorry.

 

10 ways the GOP sabotaged Obamacare

 

1. CO-OPs short-changed from the start

2. Day One legal challenges

3. Refusal to take ACA’s Medicaid expansion

4. Obstruction of enrollment efforts

5. Efforts to invalidate premium subsidies

6. A legal challenge to cost-sharing reductions

7. Undermining of ACA’s risk corridors

8. Trump’s executive order

9. AHCA’s effect on market stability

10. GOP refusal to work on bipartisan fixes

[samran]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Your deflection is noted, but you might want to sit this one out considering youre of the party of the 90 trillion-dollar-farting-cow-end-of-the-world-in-10-years-new-deal being promoted by a liberal bartender from New York. 

Thanks for your invitation to sit this one out. But nah.

 

Not a deflection. Just wondering if you could apply GOP wall funding strategy. Seems to work for plenty of people.

 

In terms of how much it would ‘cost’ you? Plenty of international comparablea out there where the average American would be paying half to two-thirds of what you pay directly or indirectly now. Oh, and for better coverage. 

 

Not it hard to find these stats. 

[Thainesss]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What a load.

The truth is Americans overwhelmingly support the principles of Obamacare (which was only sold as a possible step in the right direction) which are --

 

All Americans deserve access to healthcare

Private insurance companies should not discriminate based on preexisting conditions

 

Nobody has said Obamacare (even with the disgusting murderous obstruction not expanding Medicaid) is perfect or without major flaws.

 

The idea is fix the flaws, go to something better, NOT to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo.

 

There is not, and has never been “overwhelming” support for Obamacare. That is fake news, and rather comical considering the thread you decided to post it in. If there was “overwhelming support for Obamacare” your party wouldn’t be promoting Medicare for all. 

[attrayant]

10 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

If there was “overwhelming support for Obamacare” your party wouldn’t be promoting Medicare for all. 

 

There is broad support for the ACA.  There is also broad support for improving it, or moving to something even better.  Both of those things can be true at the same time.

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

There is not, and has never been “overwhelming” support for Obamacare. That is fake news, and rather comical considering the thread you decided to post it in. If there was “overwhelming support for Obamacare” your party wouldn’t be promoting Medicare for all. 

I didn't say that. I said there was overwhelming support for very important parts of Obamacare. 

Most importantly about PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.

Support for that (not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on that) is indeed overwhelming.

I get it, you're not really interested in facts. Just game playing. Maybe don't bother me again unless you want to have a facts based discussion. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/public-support-strong-pre-existing-condition-coverage/572410/

 

Quote

 

 

The Fate of Obamacare’s Most Popular Provision

In the 2018 elections, Republican lawmakers are torn between their ongoing pledges to repeal or oppose the health-care reform, and overwhelming support for its protections for people with preexisting conditions.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

There is not, and has never been “overwhelming” support for Obamacare. That is fake news, and rather comical considering the thread you decided to post it in. If there was “overwhelming support for Obamacare” your party wouldn’t be promoting Medicare for all. 

Know the difference between 'principles of Obamacare' and 'Obamacare'?

There is overwhelming support for universal health care in the USA.

[JAG]

1 hour ago, ReMarKable said:

So she was an oddity and her behavior has nothing to do with the system she previously worked in. 

Yes.

[Thainesss]

15 minutes ago, samran said:

Not it hard to find these stats.

 

So easy and well known these unbiased and objective facts, that you didn’t even post them. 

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

There is broad support for the ACA.  There is also broad support for improving it, or moving to something even better.  Both of those things can be true at the same time.

I think it is fair to say that there is broad support from those who pay little to nothing to receive their healthcare. As for everyone else my polling finds a general loathing of the ACA.

Edited February 27, 2019 by lannarebirth

[tlandtday]

I strongly believe in universal health care and this is the ace in the hole for the dems.  I actually think trump supports it but many republicans do not based largely on free market sentiment. 

[Chippy151]

17 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Didnt hear anything about equating the USA to a third world country when the left wanted Obamacare to pass. Now that it’s a failure we’re a third world country? 

I'm flabbergasted that so many Americans are against universal health care probably because they see it as some kind of communist/socialist plot to take money from the rich.

It's 2019! All Americans even the uninsured Republican voters (who are probably against it for some unknown reason) deserve health care.

Like someone else wrote on this topic, there would be enough money if  the US wasn't starting wars all over the place.

 

[Thainesss]

9 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

There is broad support for the ACA.  There is also broad support for improving it, or moving to something even better.  Both of those things can be true at the same time.

 

Classic example of moving the goalposts. 

 

We've gone from “overwhelming support” to “broad support” which is a garbage, political descriptive word than means absolutely nothing and could be said about anything. 

[samran]

9 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

So easy and well known these unbiased and objective facts, that you didn’t even post them. 

I’m not your research assistant. OECD has plenty of stats of % of GDP spent on medical care. 

[Thainesss]

6 minutes ago, Chippy151 said:

I'm flabbergasted that so many Americans are against universal health care probably because they see it as some kind of communist/socialist plot to take money from the rich.

It's 2019! All Americans even the uninsured Republican voters (who are probably against it for some unknown reason) deserve health care.

Like someone else wrote on this topic, there would be enough money if  the US wasn't starting wars all over the place.

 

Its really rather simple. If the left wants it to pass, tell us how it’s going to be paid for. They never do, which is a dead giveaway that they are going to financially rape the middle class. 

[Curt1591]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In this case I support the Dems 100%.

The US health system, from my perspective, is terrible and all about profit, when it should be about people needing health care. 

However, they need to take care it doesn't become hijacked by the politicians, bureaucrats and management as the NHS has been.

As Chomper Higgot pointed out, Big Medicine - and their accomplices, Blue Cross and AARP, have bought out the politicians for the last 2 decades. 

These are the people that brought us Obamacare (bet you thought it was written for the people!). Now you want them to jack with Medicare !?!

 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=s

[lannarebirth]

AS much as I'd like to see Universal Healthcare in the US I think it is a pipedream unless and until there is significant campaign finance reform, curtailment of lobbyists access to the halls of Congress, and rigid prohibitions barring the revolving door between regulatory agencies and those they regulate. Clean up those issues and 90% of America's political problems disappear, but nobody wants that. Republicans don't want it and neither do Democrats. In the meantime each side of the public debate is conditioned to carry the water of the group they serve.

Edited February 27, 2019 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

I know the purists will be horrified, but I think the most important thing right now in U.S. politics besides addressing man made climate change, is to defeat 45. Of course partisan primaries for democrats lean left just as republican primaries lean super far right. I also think there is overwhelming support for many progressive policies including universal health care. However, back to the real world, 45 must be defeated. Run too far left and 45 will probably win painting the democrats as Venezuelan style commies. Obviously not true but red baiting and fear mongering still works. Democrats need to avoid the mistake of getting boxed in on policy issues in the same way that 45 has boxed himself in with his great ego wall. I'm concerned about the 2020 political implications of house votes like this. Let 45 win again and he would move things even farther backwards. In the bigger picture, for medical care access and most all issues, that's what matters most -- beating him. 

 

To add, for democrats to pass anything, they are going to need to take the presidency, keep the house, and majorly flip the senate as well (very unlikely). 

 

So it might be fun to take symbolic votes on issues like this but it's all for naught unless you can pass something.

 

What could be passed if the democrats beat 45? I think at least a buy in option for Medicare for people over 50. It's a start. It's not nothing. But the purists would rather have nothing than a stepped approach. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

"Free at point of delivery" 

 

I find it rather funny that its phrased in that way. There certainly isnt anything free about it, yet the term is still injected into the subject. 

 

Politicians that tout medicare for all should show what their tax policy will be with these positions. Show people what its going to cost them, and be transparent about it. But they never do. 

"Free at the point of delivery" means exactly what it says - the patient does not have to pay anything to the doctor or hospital in order to receive treatment.

 

Yes, it is paid for out of general taxation and national insurance contributions but it's been that way for the last 70 years (since its introduction in 1948) everyone in the UK knows and accepts that's what some of their taxes pay for.

 

I don't know what you mean about "transparent" - the government publishes spending figures and in the most recent year for which figures are available, spent around £122 billion on the NHS. This represents about 15% of Government revenue.

 

I don't believe it's possible to calculate exactly how much of each individual's taxes goes to fund the NHS but the average cost per person is around £2,200 per year. I don't think that most people begrudge the fact that part of the taxes they pay, goes to fund universal health care for all UK citizens.

Edited February 27, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[samran]

31 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Its really rather simple. If the left wants it to pass, tell us how it’s going to be paid for. They never do, which is a dead giveaway that they are going to financially rape the middle class. 

I don’t know how getting a better product and paying less for it can be defined as raping the middle class.

 

But no doubt you’ll find a way. 

[ricklev]

33 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Its really rather simple. If the left wants it to pass, tell us how it’s going to be paid for. They never do, which is a dead giveaway that they are going to financially rape the middle class. 

Well, how does just about  every other developed economy in the whole wide world pay for it?

[marcusarelus]

2 minutes ago, ricklev said:

Well, how does just about  every other developed economy in the whole wide world pay for it?

Charge them 30 baht.  I guess the Thais are smarter than Americans.

[samran]

6 minutes ago, ricklev said:

Well, how does just about  every other developed economy in the whole wide world pay for it?

Yeah but the experience of every other developed nation has absolutely no applicability to the US!! 555