Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

[BotanyBoy]

Taxes

Cite?

Last I checked in all 50 states it's called robbery or extortion and it's a felony.

, like the founding fathers wanted it.

Founding fathers approved of robbery?? Since when?

Why do you hate America?

I don't I'm not the socialist here.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Seems a wee bit high?

Doesn't matter...no price is too high to fill (D)emocrat pockets....I mean progress!!!

Yea...progress.

 

[Luk]

Cite?

Last I checked in all 50 states it's called robbery or extortion and it's a felony.



Founding fathers approved of robbery?? Since when?



I don't I'm not the socialist here.

Answers like these are why we cannot possibly take you seriously.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Answers like these are why we cannot possibly take you seriously.

You just said that when someone other than the government takes your property by force it's called taxes.


Did you not read what I asked?

 

[dan_c00000]

That's never going to happen so do you have any realistic options?

In bot's racist mind it will happen. Just like in his mind he's held a gun and served in the military.

Bot doesn't realize we can tax scummy Wall Street companies that ruined a bunch of lives and got off scott free (he doesn't bitch about this of course).

Or cut down on military spending to the tune of $716 billion dollars (again he doesn't bitch about this because war shit is the only way he can cum).

 

[OldJourno]

How much does not having Medicare for all cost the American people?

There is a great myth that government involvement in health care keeps prices down.
Health care costs kept pace with inflation until government started seriously meddling in the form of Medicare in the mid-60s. By the mid-80s government realized giving everyone over 65 everything they wanted couldn't keep pace with the income stream, and now you have more and more doctors refusing to accept Medicare patients while others have ratios of Medicare patients they will see.
Health care costs, meanwhile, have exploded. My family premiums when I was first briefed with the rest of the newsroom was $40 a month, a cost the newspaper was happy to cover.
After two children (which cost me less than $10 out of pocket), I got money back from BCBS after the vasectomy.
By the time I retired the best deal in the newsroom covered only the employees, who had to chip in for the 80/20 coverage. If they put their children on the plan their take-home would have been about $10.
And I reckon almost every bit of those higher premiums can be attributed to cost-shifting. Medicare patients aren't paying their share, so those in the workforce have to do it for them.
Who will pay for the cost-shifting when there is Medicare for All?

 

[Bookishleigh]

When anyone other than the government comes and takes your shit by force/under threat of violence what do you call it?

Parenting......

 

[070276]

The Federalist framers most certainly did propose the entire concept of federal taxation by FORCE.

It was the Anti-Federalist founders who wholly opposed it; eg, Patrick Henry cited statist federal taxation as a prime reason as he proclaimed that although he would never play any role in the violent overthrow of the new federal government the Constitution empowered, he would most certainly never support it.

And he kept his word: the first choices of Virginia's legislature as its first two US Senators under the new Constitution were Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, but Henry outright declined. Showing how valuable the VA legislature deem its original revolutionary hero's views, they chose Henry's personally recommended alternate William Grayson for the Senate seat over James Madison.

Henry diligently worked the VA legislature against election of "the father of the Constitution" Madison, a lot on the allegation ("Thus, gentlemen, the secret is out.") that Madison wouldn't vote the legislature's consensus "against direct taxation" by the new federal government if he was elected to a US Senate seat. Madison lost, garnering 77 votes to Grayson's 86 and Lee's 98.

Madison wrote Jefferson regarding the matter:

They made me a candidate for the Senate, for which I had not allowed my pretensions. The attempt was defeated by Mr. Henry, who is omnipotent in the present legislature, and who added to the expedients common on such occasions a philippic against my federal principles."

Alas, Patrick Henry wasn't quite as "omnipotent in the present legislature" as Madison hyperbolically wrote Jefferson because just shortly before, despite Henry's renowned talents of oratory and persuasion, he obviously couldn't convince enough Federalists in the VA ratifying convention to not ratify the new proposed Constitution (the vote was 89 For ratification vs. 79 Against ratification).

Madison consoled himself by winning election as his home district's first US Representative to the United State's First Congress. Yet, even in the lower House Madison proved the VA legislature and Henry wise in not electing him a US Senator honorably representing the State of Virginia's views, for Madison went his own "father of the Constitution" way as he refused to propose the Articles of Amendment the VA legislature approved to be proposed in the new Congress, preferring instead to propose and champion Articles his "federal principles" dictated.

 

[nowisthetime]

The Federalist framers most certainly did propose the entire concept of federal taxation by FORCE.

It was the Anti-Federalist founders who wholly opposed it; eg, Patrick Henry cited statist federal taxation as a prime reason as he proclaimed that although he would never play any role in the violent overthrow of the new federal government the Constitution empowered, he would most certainly never support it.

And he kept his word: the first choices of Virginia's legislature as its first two US Senators under the new Constitution were Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, but Henry outright declined. Showing how valuable the VA legislature deem its original revolutionary hero's views, they chose Henry's personally recommended alternate William Grayson for the Senate seat over James Madison.

Henry diligently worked the VA legislature against election of "the father of the Constitution" Madison, a lot on the allegation ("Thus, gentlemen, the secret is out.") that Madison wouldn't vote the legislature's consensus "against direct taxation" by the new federal government if he was elected to a US Senate seat. Madison lost, garnering 77 votes to Grayson's 86 and Lee's 98.

Madison wrote Jefferson regarding the matter:



Alas, Patrick Henry wasn't quite as "omnipotent in the present legislature" as Madison hyperbolically wrote Jefferson because just shortly before, despite Henry's renowned talents of oratory and persuasion, he obviously couldn't convince enough Federalists in the VA ratifying convention to not ratify the new proposed Constitution (the vote was 89 For ratification vs. 79 Against ratification).

Madison consoled himself by winning election as his home district's first US Representative to the United State's First Congress. Yet, even in the lower House Madison proved the VA legislature and Henry wise in not electing him a US Senator honorably representing the State of Virginia's views, for Madison went his own "father of the Constitution" way as he refused to propose the Articles of Amendment the VA legislature approved to be proposed in the new Congress, preferring instead to propose and champion Articles his "federal principles" dictated.

You know what's so funny?

Some rightist goons bitch and moan about Miss L slapping them with a ban and then they come back with some shady alt, thinking folks are stupid enough to buy it.

All that bitching and moaning about this site, and yet, your ass is still sitting here all high and mighty.

Leopards don't change their spots, I see, Eyer.

You rightists are not very clever.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So... 3.26 trillion a year to cover all Americans? I assume that's short scale trillions.

Divided by 326 million Americans (or 325.7 according to Wikipedia, but close enough.)

If I headbutted my calculator right and didn't get a zero too much or too little that's an estimated annual health care cost averaging to ten thousand bucks per person. Give or take.

Seems a wee bit high?

No are pretty much spot on. Healthcare as a share of GDP is around 18%, so around $3.4 Trillion annually and $10,300 a head.

The thing is that already accounts for all the current government spending on the sector and so would not "add" it pretty much nets out. Also Medicare has a 3-4% administrative cost not 15% in the private markets, so that (administrative savings) covers the 30 million uninsured. You displace about a half a million people employed in the healthcare insurance industry.

Basically you cut out the 10-12% in private profit taking and everyone is insured.

Add some price caps on drugs and in the aggregate we spend a lot less over 10 years than we would without medicare for all and capping drug prices.

 

[Liar]

Doesn't matter...no price is too high to fill (D)emocrat pockets....I mean progress!!!

Yea...progress.

-------------> point
you <--------------

What I'm saying is the $32.6 trillion number is based on crazy high health care costs per capita. $10k in the US bears out with the OECD Health Statistics, so it's not that their calculation is off.

I live, as you may know, in Singlepayerland. The equivalent number here is $3.16k. For comparable access, quality and outcome. In a country with comparable GDP per capita. Slightly lower,m but not crazy lower.

So where's the 3x cost inflation coming from? Could part of it be that you have a financing mechanism, a business model as it were, that incentivices it?

 

[Rightguide]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-medicare-bill-estimated-326-trillion-56906940

Yep, Commies and most Democrats are economically stupid.

 

[about_average]

In a new report, the Prison Policy Initiative found that mass incarceration costs state and federal governments and American families $100 billion more each year than previously thought. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, there are 184,379 total federal inmates, meaning that almost 32 percent of all federal inmates are aliens.

That's a bogus number. 74% are in prison for immigration violations including overstaying visas, meaning a wall wouldn't have stopped them.
Additionally, you're assuming a wall would be 100% effective, which it wouldn't be.

Where did I say that?

You just can't help but make shit up can you?

There are two "promote the general welfare" clauses in the Constitution.
You agreed it would be better for the country if everyone had healthcare.
Welfare is defined as " the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being

Doesn't matter...no price is too high to fill (D)emocrat pockets....I mean progress!!!

Yea...progress.

It was the republicans who insisted that the insurance companies get the windfall of the ACA dollars

 

[Liar]

No are pretty much spot on. Healthcare as a share of GDP is around 18%, so around $3.4 Trillion annually and $10,300 a head.

The thing is that already accounts for all the current government spending on the sector and so would not "add" it pretty much nets out. Also Medicare has a 3-4% administrative cost not 15% in the private markets, so that (administrative savings) covers the 30 million uninsured. You displace about a half a million people employed in the healthcare insurance industry.

Basically you cut out the 10-12% in private profit taking and everyone is insured.

Add some price caps on drugs and in the aggregate we spend a lot less over 10 years than we would without medicare for all and capping drug prices.

What IS the current government spending on the sector?

Ok, Googled it. About 1,4 trillion. Not sure if that includes foregone revenue for health isureance realted tax code.

 

[about_average]

Cite?

LMAO
Look who's asking for a cite.

Yep, Commies and most Democrats are economically stupid.

Then there're people like you who're stupid in every area.

 

[DeYaKen]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-medicare-bill-estimated-326-trillion-56906940

Doesn't that work out to about $20 per citizen per week? How much do you all pay for insurance? If you've got universal healthcare you don't need the insurance so you all end up with more money in your pocket and no worries about becoming ill.

 

[about_average]

Health care costs kept pace with inflation until government started seriously meddling in the form of Medicare in the mid-60s.

Ah the good old early 60's, when 40% of americans couldn't see a doctor for things as serious as continual vomiting, chest pains, and diarrhea lasting for four days or more.

we really need to get back to the good old days.

 

[bellisarius]

So you're arguing that no one should pay taxes?
I get services in return for my taxes.
I may not always agree with them, but hey, that's the price I pay to live in an industrialized society.

Everyone in the country having healthcare is a lot better for the country than $25billion+ on a border wall or the $64million plus we've paid so far for Trump to go play golf.

Explain why.

 

[Emerson40]

Yep, Commies and most Democrats are economically stupid.

Says the guy cheerleading for the economically challenged idiot who started a trade war that hurt American farmers, requiring they be paid welfare. Welfare he obtained by borrowing moolah from the countries he started trade wars with.

Instead of profiting from food sales sold to these countries, America is now servicing debt and paying interest to those countries, while farmers become dependent on government and receive handouts.


What do you suppose would happen if China decided to call in the debt?

 

[about_average]

Explain why.

For the sake of argument lets assume you have a job.
How much do you contribute to the GDP when you're so sick you can't get out of bed?
How much will you contribute to the GDP when you're dead?

 

[bellisarius]

For the sake of argument lets assume you have a job.
How much do you contribute to the GDP when you're so sick you can't get out of bed?
How much will you contribute to the GDP when you're dead?

That's not an answer. The nation grew and prospered for over 150 years without the government paying for your healthcare. So why is it so important now?

Now, I am fully aware of the emotional issues involved. No one wants to get sick and no one wants to die. But you ARE going to get sick and you ARE going to die, with or without government healthcare.

 

[Liar]

That's not an answer. The nation grew and prospered for over 150 years without the government paying for your healthcare. So why is it so important now?

Now, I am fully aware of the emotional issues involved. No one wants to get sick and no one wants to die. But you ARE going to get sick and you ARE going to die, with or without government healthcare.

You are going to die with or without food.

With, it will happen later.

 

[070276]

You know what's so funny?

...they come back with some shady alt, thinking folks are stupid enough to buy it.

You project your self-guilt so very, very well.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Put the word "Medicare" in a thread title, and I can guarantee you who the top poster in your thread will be.

 

[about_average]

That's not an answer. The nation grew and prospered for over 150 years without the government paying for your healthcare.

Quote where I said the US wouldn't "grow and prosper" without everyone having healthcare?