Americans attitudes towards Medicare for all is changing rapidly
« prev   economics   next »

Comments 1 - 40 of 43     Next »     Last »

1   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 5, 1:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

I don't think that's a surprise. The boomers are old now and want their free cake and the millenials are constantly triggered and poor and want theirs too.
2   Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2017 Dec 5, 1:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Oh we're calling it a new word today.
Just wait until they find out this "Medicare" is funded by premiums, and you write a check to a hedge fund every month for your premium.

A Government Healthcare system is the only answer. Everything else is just Jargon Gymnastics to make the rich richer.
3   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 5, 1:48pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote      

Medicare for all is totally incompatible with the tax cuts that are in progress. IMO, the main purpose of the tax cut is to starve gov, and further the need to cut programs. When growth fails to hit targets, the debt talk will resume. I'm glad Obamacare made the conversation possible and Bernie got traction on it, though. A dem electoral route would be necessary.
5   anon_4460e   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 5, 6:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

KimJongUn says
Bernie-free-shit-land:

Ahhh, that old fuck you I still got my paycheck, talk about social whatever after I get the slippery slope land.
6   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 5, 6:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

KimJongUn says


How would the situation described in this thread would be handled in Bernie-free-shit-land: https://patrick.net/post/1312247/2017-12-03-licensed-to-bill-how-doctors-profit-from-injury-assessments-that-benefit-insruance-companies


What does canadian car accidents have to do with bernie? That's like adding 2 + 2 and coming up with negative pi.
7   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 5, 7:43pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says
KimJongUn says


How would the situation described in this thread would be handled in Bernie-free-shit-land: https://patrick.net/post/1312247/2017-12-03-licensed-to-bill-how-doctors-profit-from-injury-assessments-that-benefit-insruance-companies


What does canadian car accidents have to do with bernie? That's like adding 2 + 2 and coming up with negative pi.


Their healthcare model has been touted by Bernine supporters as an example to be followed, that's what it has to do with Bernie. I asked how his model would differ from Canadian and how would it handle the situations similar to the one described in the article. Apparently, Canadian so-called "universal" so-called "healthcare" is not handling them very well, despite all the praise showered on it from the left in the US. So this is a legitimate question.
8   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 5, 7:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

I still don’t understand your legitimate question. Can you try and pose it as an actual question, please?
9   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 5, 7:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
I still don’t understand your legitimate question. Can you try and pose it as an actual question, please?


Read the linked article about Canadians not able to get proper care after a car accident. Is or is not Canadian healthcare still considered a model to follow? How would Bernie's proposed system handle these situations?
10   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 5, 8:06pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

KimJongUn says
errc says
I still don’t understand your legitimate question. Can you try and pose it as an actual question, please?


Read the linked article about Canadians not able to get proper care after a car accident. Is or is not Canadian healthcare still considered a model to follow? How would Bernie's proposed system handle these situations?


That’s too much work to answer your question, not sure why you can’t simply ask your question directly.

As someone who had to deal with American healthcare and insurance after being nearly killed by a drunk driver in a car accident, I can’t imagine it being any worse a situation in Canada. I know Canada doesn’t treat losers that drink with the little kid gloves that they do in America. Americans convicted of a DUI aren’t even allowed into Canada.
11   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 5, 8:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

KimJongUn says
errc says
I still don’t understand your legitimate question. Can you try and pose it as an actual question, please?


Read the linked article about Canadians not able to get proper care after a car accident. Is or is not Canadian healthcare still considered a model to follow? How would Bernie's proposed system handle these situations?


How is your situation currently handled here in the states?

What is your fear of how it would be handled differently under Bernies proposed system?
12   anon_08dee   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 5, 10:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
The boomers are old now and want their free cake


They've been paying into medicare there entire working life. It's not free cake once they're 65 and over.
13   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 5, 10:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_08dee says
mell says
The boomers are old now and want their free cake


They've been paying into medicare there entire working life. It's not free cake once they're 65 and over.


It is if the paid cost of services rendered largely exceed the payments, which they - unfortunately - do. It's called healthcare inflation and it is one of the most rampant forms which you won't find in any government inflation report (insurance payments alone are useless to measure inflation precisely for the reason that there is forward debt created for future generations when the paid cost of services exceeds payments). Its definitely less free than starting out young millenials on free health care, but it is still a form of free.
14   APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 6, 7:29am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

In a single payer system, doctors would be forced to drug their patients, get them to reveal their ATM PINs, lift their debit cards, knife them to death and drain their patient's accounts.
15   anon_7798e   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 7:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
anon_08dee says
mell says
The boomers are old now and want their free cake


They've been paying into medicare there entire working life. It's not free cake once they're 65 and over.


It is if the paid cost of services rendered largely exceed the payments, which they - unfortunately - do.


Not sure about that. Boomers (and their employers) were pre-paying their healthcare premiums for 45 years before they retired (through the Medicare Tax).

How much did the employer and employee pay into the system during that time? How many boomers die before using that amount for their healthcare?
16   FP   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 7:37am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

1. The problems of the Canadian healthcare are exaggerated and anecdotes sensationalized in the US.

2. The cause of these problems is not that it is a universal heath care.

3. There are a dozen other developed countries with universal heath care. So no, the Canadian system does not have to be the model.


(I will not reply to comments that are already answered by the above points.)
17   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 6, 8:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_7798e says

How much did the employer and employee pay into the system during that time? How many boomers die before using that amount for their healthcare?

Boomers built up a surplus, because their payments were supporting a smaller population. Once gen Xers are supporting boomers, the surplus will be depleted, and there will be a medicare debt. It's pretty clear that their payments will not completely cover expenses. There are two reasons that a SS system that worked well for many years will eventually stop working as it currently is (1) health care costs are rising faster than wages and (2) the population is not growing as fast as it used to be, and population growth is a big part of what has kept payments as low as they have been over the years.

Something has to change to make health care more affordable. Rationing in one form or another is what is going to do it. One option is for the gov to provide it for the masses, but limit what is covered or what can be billed anyway. Another option is to keep a private system, limit what the poor and middle class can afford to buy/use, continue to bankrupt middle class people who become sick, and keep people dependent on big corporations who have bargaining power with insurance companies.
18   HEYYOU   ignore (4)   2017 Dec 6, 8:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

KimJongUn says
That's like adding 2 + 2 and coming up with negative pi.

Patnet math? lol

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says
In a single payer system, doctors would be forced to drug their patients, get them to reveal their ATM PINs, lift their debit cards, knife them to death and drain their patient's accounts.


The only path to wealth is selling body parts.
19   joshuatrio   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 9:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

1. The problems of the Canadian healthcare are exaggerated and anecdotes sensationalized in the US.


Proof?

I used to work for Bombardier (Canadian owned company) back in Texas. Several of the IT staff moved from Canada to the US because "the government ran healthcare in Canada was so poor."
20   HEYYOU   ignore (4)   2017 Dec 6, 9:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

If any Republicans are for govt. involvement in healthcare,they should be tried & executed.
Their SOCIALISM will destroy America.
Republicans should be removed from their SOCIALIST Security,Medicare & all their other govt. teats.
It's so sad to see Americans having to pay taxes to carry this slime.

" the Johns Hopkins study estimates that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors."
Better go to a Canadian hospital.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors
21   anon_4f8fe   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 12:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joshuatrio says
Proof?


First hand experience.

FP
22   anon_6c2c3   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 12:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
anon_7798e says

How much did the employer and employee pay into the system during that time? How many boomers die before using that amount for their healthcare?

Boomers built up a surplus, because their payments were supporting a smaller population. Once gen Xers are supporting boomers, the surplus will be depleted, and there will be a medicare debt.


That didn't answer the first question, but pulled a straw man.

How much did the Boomers (and employers) pay in?
23   joshuatrio   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 12:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HEYYOU says
If any Republicans are for govt. involvement in healthcare,they should be tried & executed.
Their SOCIALISM will destroy America.
Republicans should be removed from their SOCIALIST Security,Medicare & all their other govt. teats.


Now wait, where was Obama's role in the current fiasco?
24   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 6, 1:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_6c2c3 says
That didn't answer the first question, but pulled a straw man.

The question is vague, and you will understand that if you attempt to answer it. My post was good, because it gets right to the primary problem with medicare and SS at the moment. Here are the same two points direct from the horse's mouth:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
Why don't you tell us how much boomers paid into the system. Go ahead and put it on a per person basis, and also tell us how much their average expected benefits are over their retirement. Their benefits will be much greater than what they put in, so go ahead and calculate the net present value of payments and benefits using the government borrowing rate, say 10 yr treasury bonds.
25   anon_e63ad   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 4:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
The question is vague,


Vague? Seems straight forward to me, here it is again:

anon_6c2c3 says
How much did the Boomers (and employers) pay in?


What part of that don't you understand? Doesn't seem vague at all.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Why don't you tell us how much boomers paid into the system.


Now I see why you went off on your straw man, and are now flipping the question back, you can't answer it.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Their benefits will be much greater than what they put in,


How can you say that if you don't know what they paid in?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
My post was good, because it gets right to the primary problem with medicare and SS at the moment.


That had nothing to do with the question that was asked of you. Everyone knows Medicare will go bankrupt, just answer the original question.
26   APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 6, 5:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says
1. The problems of the Canadian healthcare are exaggerated and anecdotes sensationalized in the US.

2. The cause of these problems is not that it is a universal heath care.

3. There are a dozen other developed countries with universal heath care. So no, the Canadian system does not have to be the model.


(I will not reply to comments that are already answered by the above points.)


Everyone has been dead in Canada since the 1940s, mostly from suicide as in every Canadian knew the doctors there would have no choice but to knife them and take their money.
27   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 5:56pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

1 data point here: I saw somewhere the US government already spends for healthcare per capita almost as much as what the typical European government pays.

Except of course European governments typically cover everyone for that money. Whereas the US government covers only a fraction of the population.

This massive government spending is completed in the US with massive private spending, with results on many measures often inferior to Europe.

As long as you keep a healthcare system where the incentives are to maximize lifetime revenue, you shouldn't be surprised that we are actually achieving that.
28   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 6:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
Americans convicted of a DUI aren’t even allowed into Canada.

I had never heard this until you posted this. I looked it up and technically/legally, you are correct.

They certainly don't enforce this though, seemingly at all. I've know people personally and a lot of friends of friends that do fishing trips up to Canada every summer. I know of at least 5 guys that have been going up there annually, all of them with DUI convictions in the last 5 years (I just said I know them, they're not my friends). They didn't do anything extra to get across and had zero issue. I think I know of one group trip where at least 3 out of about 12 guys had a DUI recently before going.

And maybe this is just because fishing tourism is a pretty good profit source for Canada and their economy. A TON of Mid-Western's go up there in the summer, I'd venture to guess 10-20% of those that go have had a DUI in the last 10 years. I seriously wonder if this is enforced at all or if it's a profiling tool.
29   anon_3ea31   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 9:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
Except of course European governments typically cover everyone for that money. Whereas the US government covers only a fraction of the population.


That fraction is about 140 million people between medicare, medicaid and the VA.
30   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 7, 5:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Medicare for all is totally incompatible with the tax cuts that are in progress. IMO, the main purpose of the tax cut is to starve gov, and further the need to cut programs.

Wow. It didn't take long to have this proven correct. Paul Ryan is already talking about slashing entitlements in 2018. To be clear, he is talking about cutting the social security and medicare benefits that poor and working class folks have contributed into all of their lives in order to retroactively fund tax cuts that will go mostly to the wealthier people.
31   anon_b5d5a   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 7, 8:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Paul Ryan is already talking about slashing entitlements in 2018.


Medicare isn't an entitlement, unless you think your current health insurance is an entitlement too.

anon_7798e says
Boomers (and their employers) were pre-paying their healthcare premiums for 45 years before they retired (through the Medicare Tax).

How much did the employer and employee pay into the system during that time? How many boomers die before using that amount for their healthcare?


Where did you hear this:

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
To be clear, he is talking about cutting the social security and medicare benefits that poor and working class folks have contributed into all of their lives in order to retroactively fund tax cuts that will go mostly to the wealthier people.


Got a link to his statement?
32   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 8, 4:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_b5d5a says

Got a link to his statement?

That's what do called entitlement programs are. It's not controversial. Just search the net or check Wikipedia, which has a link to an editorial by Paul Ryan where he refers to ss and Medicare as entitlements.
33   anon_13ce6   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 8, 6:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
anon_b5d5a says

Got a link to his statement?

That's what do called entitlement programs are. It's not controversial. Just search the net or check Wikipedia, which has a link to an editorial by Paul Ryan where he refers to ss and Medicare as entitlements.


Since we didn't put SS in a lock box it has all been spent already. But it's still owed by the US government. Not seeing how they would go about abandoning this IOU but not saying they won't.
34   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 8, 7:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_13ce6 says
Since we didn't put SS in a lock box it has all been spent already.

When pushed, the Republicans are already admitting that they are going to do this. They are not advertising it at the moment, because they want less pushback on the tax cuts.

The SS/Medicare fund has collected more than it paid out, and the general fund spent the money. I don't know if they literally issued the fund a treasury note, but that is effectively what happened. When the SS/Medicare starts withdrawing the money, there will be more pressure on the treasury sales. The gov will have to sell more bonds to raise funds to pay the general fund bills and pay back the SS/Medicare fund. That will put more pressure on interest rates and drive them up. The tax cuts will exacerbate that problem. When rates start going up, it will create a problem that will be addressed by cutting nominal benefits. Rather than nominal cuts, they will stop increasing benefits at the rate of inflation, which will be higher than now for the reason that I already stated. The Republicans need to start now to achieve the real (inflation adjusted) cuts that they will need later. The pain will be felt, but they can deny that they made actual cuts, because nominal benefits will remain the same.
35   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 8, 7:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

A nearly free measure which would help immensely is to require exact billing in advance of treatment for all non-emergency treatment.

Trump mentioned this during his campaign, but seems to have quietly dropped it.
36   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 8, 7:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says
Trump mentioned this during his campaign, but seems to have quietly dropped it.

That's one thing that I agreed with him about in the campaign, but as I posted at the time, it's not going to happen. He conveniently stopped talking about that.
37   anon_80c08   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 8, 9:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Just search the net or check Wikipedia, which has a link to an editorial by Paul Ryan where he refers to ss and Medicare as entitlements.


You have to define "entitlements". That's turned into a catch-all phrase.

You are entitled to Medicare and S.S. because you and your employer paid into the programs while you were working.

Other govt. programs also get grouped into the entitlement heading, like EBT, section 8, WIC, TANF, etc. These are programs that you speciffically didn't pay into and are give-aways.

What's your definition of entitlement? Is medicare and EBT in the same category?
38   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 8, 9:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_80c08 says
You have to define "entitlements".

That's true. That's why the Republicans love the term so much. They can say that they are going to cut entitlements, and lots of people think that they are referring to welfare that those 'entitled lazies' are receiving. However, the big money is in cutting social security and medicare, and that is what they intend to cut. However, if they repeated over and over that they were going to cut social security and medicare, they would lose elections, so that repeat over and over that they are going to cut taxes and slash 'entitlements'.

This whole question came up because I said that the government will come after social security and medicare, and I mentioned that Paul Ryan was recently talking about slashing entitlements. So, for the purposes of this conversation, we can define it the same way that Paul Ryan and the other Republicans define it. It refers to all payments that people are entitled to, whether because they paid into the plan (e.g. social security and medicare) or because they are poor and qualify based on lack of income (e.g. food stamps).

As an aside, the word entitlement doesn't work as well for welfare and food stamps, because you have to assume that a minimum standard of living is a basic right that people are entitled to. It works much better for programs that people paid into, because they have an obvious right to get something in return as the government promised.
39   APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 8, 10:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

If a person is sick enough, they'll beg for a bullet which they can offered to them at a reasonable price, thanks to the miracle of the market.

Nothing else is needed.
40   anon_6a51a   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 8, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
As an aside, the word entitlement doesn't work as well for welfare and food stamps, because you have to assume that a minimum standard of living is a basic right that people are entitled to.


No, that's exactly the definition of entitlement, as it relates to welfare, because people feel they're entitled to those benefits, just because, doesn't matter if they paid in to them or not. Who said that a minimum standard of living is a basic right and should be given away for free?

Definition of entitlement
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
and I mentioned that Paul Ryan was recently talking about slashing entitlements. So, for the purposes of this conversation, we can define it the same way that Paul Ryan and the other Republicans define it.


You can define it any way you want, it doesn't make it true.

Once you jump the shark saying medicare and S.S. is an entitlement, because you're collecting something from the government (even those you were forced/taxed into paying it), where does it end?

Is it an entitlement to collect on your homeowners insurance when your house burns down?
Is it an entitlement to collect on your auto insurance if you total your car?
Is it an entitlement to collect on your health insurance if you have a heart transplant?
Is it an entitlement to collect on your life insurance if you die early?

In each one of those cases, you could collect more than you paid in. That would be exactly what you stated about medicare, that beneficiaries will collect more than they paid in.

The government specified what you had to pay into medicare while you were working, you didn't have the option to tailor your payments based on what you wanted to pay, like you could with all your other insurances. So saying medicare is an entitlement when you collect it, is just nonsense.

Comments 1 - 40 of 43     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_6a359 or log in at top of page: