Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

banned from Kos

(4,017 posts)
5. False. All workers pay into Medicare now.
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:02 PM
Dec 2012

Yet only those over 65 receive benefits (plus the disabled).

Posts like this diminish the value of worker contributions.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
12. It would seem that the question would be to compare the fiscal soundness of Medicare for All vs the
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:06 PM
Dec 2012


...current system in its entirety.

That is, would the total of funds now spent on healthcare for those younger than 65 be more responsibly spent on Medicare for All than the current system?

Another way to phrase the question would be to ask if the Medicare system, presently or expanded to include everyone, is currently, or would be, more fiscally responsible than the current private insurance based system?

The question is not limited to the present worker contributions to Medicare, but includes all funds spent on healthcare, including insurance, private payments, taxpayer support of hospital districts, etc.


Johonny

(20,851 posts)
6. false
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:04 PM
Dec 2012

getting rid of the health care system is the most fiscally conservative policy.

If there was no health care system then no one could complain they didn't have access to it. The 1 % can always take their private jet to Canada to see a doctor.

Of course you would still pay a medicare payroll tax... there just would be a system to spend that money on and they would use that money to funnel more of the budget to the rich.



 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
7. make it available to all, regardless of age
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:04 PM
Dec 2012

health care is a basic human right, and is recognized as such in most civilized countries, the United States being an exception. There are some areas where profit should not be the principle motive.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,190 posts)
8. Yes, without competition from a public option like Medicare ...
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:27 PM
Dec 2012

private healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket. Why does an aspirin cost $25 in the hospital? Because they can get the insurance company to pay that. Why does a coronary bypass operation cost $200K? Same thing. An MRI costs $1200 in the US. In France it costs $250. The "free market", charging whatever the market will bear, is a disaster when it comes to healthcare.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
10. If you were in a cave during the creation of the Affordable Care Act,
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:03 PM
Dec 2012

you wouldn't know that activists as well as doctors from the Physicians for a National Health Plan were repeatedly arrested when they asked for a voice in the debates to put forth the case for single payer or Medicare for all. When the idea of a Public Option or a plan to offer Medicare on the exchange was presented, Democratic senators like Max Baucus refused to put it in the bill. So that's what happened. The Affordable Care Act was written by health insurance company and PhRMA lobbyists and they prevailed.

The only way we will ever see Medicare for All is when the insurance companies start finding the business unprofitable and decide to get out of it, then the government will have to step in to offer some kind of national health care.

stlsaxman

(9,236 posts)
14. one can draw a direct line from the end of prohibition to the health care debacle.
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:05 PM
Dec 2012

think about it- when organized crime couldn't be in the booze biz anymore, what else were they any good at?

INSURANCE!

The insurance industry is what's come of the mob.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
11. True, even with abuses it functions at something more than 10 points lower than the MLR
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:04 PM
Dec 2012

specified by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

This means that with further cost efficiencies directed toward developing care and services, we can invest in preventative and authentically valid alternative treatment modalities, including mental health parity, that will give Americans even more bang for their buck than they are currently receiving from Medicare, which increased efficiencies will reduce the costs of health care over-all.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
13. It would be the most fiscally efficient option.
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:55 PM
Dec 2012

It would get the overall cost of healthcare down and get the cost per person down for Medicare.

And the would also be the right thing to do.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»True or False: EXPANDING ...