Healthcare for all would cost $32 TRILLION over 10 years.

[Vandalshandle]

Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.

So how much do beneficiaries have to pay to afford a system that will cost upwards of 5.3 trillion dollars a year. There are just over 300 million americans. You do the math.

First, I see no link to your 5.3 trillion dollars. Second, every industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, except the US. I suspect that they don't need magic wands to do it.

 

[fncceo]

No one wants anyone to die.

And yet everyone will.

 

[danielpalos]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

I make a motion for a more market friendly approach that solves simple poverty through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. Having recourse to an income enables greater market participation in our economy by more people. The law of large numbers should work for us.

 

[fncceo]

I make a motion for a more market friendly approach that solves simple poverty through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

How does the market direct unemployment compensation when the amount, who gets paid, and for how long, are all decisions of the state? The market has no influence.

 

[danielpalos]

I make a motion for a more market friendly approach that solves simple poverty through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

How does the market direct unemployment compensation when the amount, who gets paid, and for how long, are all decisions of the state? The market has no influence.

I agree to disagree. Employment is the will of either party in our market based economy.

The objective is to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment as a more market friendly form of social safety net.

Unemployment compensation that is one dollar an hour per hour equivalent less than the minimum wage, will work to provide market based metrics.

 

[Slashsnake]

Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.

So how much do beneficiaries have to pay to afford a system that will cost upwards of 5.3 trillion dollars a year. There are just over 300 million americans. You do the math.

Reduce the cost by supplying healthcare to taxpayers and children... Those on welfare don't get the benefit and should pay out of their own pocket. You shouldn't be able to drain the system and benefit from it too.

 

[MarathonMike]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

Dean Dean Dean.....

 

[dblack]

Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.

Yep. And the money will still end up in the hands of the insurance industry. Very little changes.

 

[Votto]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

No kidding.

I was also watching TV and the History channel had this episode that essentially proves that aliens seeded life on earth.

I just love watching TV. It never seems to lie.

 

[MedfordMan]

Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.

So how much do beneficiaries have to pay to afford a system that will cost upwards of 5.3 trillion dollars a year. There are just over 300 million americans. You do the math.

First, I see no link to your 5.3 trillion dollars. Second, every industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, except the US. I suspect that they don't need magic wands to do it.

If you read the report that was out out showing that Medicare for all will cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years, that number is predicated on a 40% cut in payments to providers.

There is mechanism under the current Medicare system that allows Congress to cut payments to provider, but because providers threaten to stop treating patients with reduced payments, Congress has NEVER (not once) cut payments to providers.

When you consider that and other unrealistic projections within the Medicare For All plan, it's clear that Medicare For All will cost much more than 32 trillion over 10 years. Looking logically at the actual costs, 53 trillion 0ver 10 years is my projection (and it's probably low).

I'm trying to remind people that 3.2 trillion is an unreasonably low number, but I guess we 'll see what it actually costs soon.

Still it's painful either way, so feel free to show me the how just over 328 million people are going to come up with even 3.2 trillion dollars a year...

 

[MedfordMan]

Savings that would quickly evaporate due to union represented claims adjusters being paid more than the private market would bear and receiving unsustainable Cadillac pension plans.

Removing the need to maintain a fiscally responsible combined ratio, efficiency would decline further eliminating any reduction in costs.

No, we would be taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation.

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

 

[Crepitus]

No, we would be taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation.

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

 

[Crepitus]

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.

 

[dblack]

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.

Coercive systems always rot from the inside out.

 

[Crepitus]

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.

Coercive systems always rot from the inside out.

What makes you think it would be coercive? It would just be a benefit you get for being a citizen. Paid for with your taxes just like road maintenance and airport security.

 

[dblack]

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.

Coercive systems always rot from the inside out.

What makes you think it would be coercive? It would just be a benefit you get for being a citizen. Paid for with your taxes just like road maintenance and airport security.

Taxes are coercive.

 

[Crepitus]

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.

Coercive systems always rot from the inside out.

What makes you think it would be coercive? It would just be a benefit you get for being a citizen. Paid for with your taxes just like road maintenance and airport security.

Taxes are coercive.

Ah, you're one of those.

Have a nice night.

 

[dblack]

But what makes you think Congress would cut out their favorite lobbyists? Seriously, Democrats had the chance to do this six years ago, but instead the created yet another feeding trough. The original Medicare bill was supposed to be government insurance, but was - as a concession to lobbyists - farmed out to the same insurance companies screwing us in the private market. I wonder what makes progressives think things will difference this time?

Well, not being a congresscritter or a lobbyist I really can't garantees it will be, I do know that's what we should do though, and if we don't try we can never succeed.

Coercive systems always rot from the inside out.

What makes you think it would be coercive? It would just be a benefit you get for being a citizen. Paid for with your taxes just like road maintenance and airport security.

Taxes are coercive.

Ah, you're one of those.

Have a nice night.

Good answer, good answer!

 

[dblack]

Medicare for All will be the same thing as Medicare, the same thing as ACA - a government scheme to funnel tax money to their favored corporate "partners".