Medicare for all would save $450 billion and 68,000 lives every year.

[bripat9643]

You haven't shown the connection. The insurance companies aren't to blame for the cost of our "system." The government is.

The government is responsible BECAUSE the corrupt politicians are owned by them through a system of legal bribery. No it isn't solely the insurance companies---it's Big Pharm, the FDA, the AMA and the multi-conglomerate of publicly traded companies they're all connected to.

I agree that the FDA and the AMA share a lot of the blame. Even the insurance companies deserve a little of the blame. But most of the blame belongs to government programs and government regulations that drive up the cost of medical care.

Bologna. Insurance costs big pharma Hospital ridiculous costs doctor high costs- costs are the problem. Lack of regulation transparency competition and the chaos of the GOP scam system we're trying to reform....

All those things cost a lot because the government makes them expensive.

High prices in the medical industry are due to collusion where all the colluders increase their profits from rising prices.

There is no competition in medical services.

They are due to government. Collusion has been tried thousands of times in private industry, and it always falls apart.

You're just another Marxist idiot.

 

[the other mike]

A popular Facebook meme going around

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Problem with medicare for all is that health care professionals would have to eventually work for about the same $15/hr that the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds would make.
(As dictated by the EXACT SAME Socialists).

If a person can make the same or better living without 8 - 10 years of schooling, it won't be long until there's a critical shortage of health care professionals and the burger flippers are moving into brain surgery on their GED.

While this wouldn't affect most on the Left....it would certainly affect those of us that think.

My primary care physician here in the USA is a (wait for it.......) CANADIAN. Wonder why ?????

Socialism: No matter how many different color sprinkles they put on a pile of shit (Socialism).....it's STILL.....a pile of shit.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Socialists think that Capitalism is the root of all evil.

Wrong.

Capitalism is the root of all wealth.

Greed is the root of all evil.

 

[Slyhunter]

You haven't shown the connection. The insurance companies aren't to blame for the cost of our "system." The government is.

The government is responsible BECAUSE the corrupt politicians are owned by them through a system of legal bribery. No it isn't solely the insurance companies---it's Big Pharm, the FDA, the AMA and the multi-conglomerate of publicly traded companies they're all connected to.

I agree that the FDA and the AMA share a lot of the blame. Even the insurance companies deserve a little of the blame. But most of the blame belongs to government programs and government regulations that drive up the cost of medical care.

Bologna. Insurance costs big pharma Hospital ridiculous costs doctor high costs- costs are the problem. Lack of regulation transparency competition and the chaos of the GOP scam system we're trying to reform....

And foreign wars. We wouldn't even need a VA anymore if we'd stopped going to war 70 years ago. The last remaining war veterans would have kicked the bucket by now.

With that logic, if we got rid of the Military completely there would be no wars. Get rid of guns there would be no gun crimes. Liberal logic is illogical.

 

[the other mike]

With that logic, if we got rid of the Military completely there would be no wars. Get rid of guns there would be no gun crimes. Liberal logic is illogical.

If being antiwar is "liberal" count me in.

 

[Slyhunter]

With that logic, if we got rid of the Military completely there would be no wars. Get rid of guns there would be no gun crimes. Liberal logic is illogical.

If being antiwar is "liberal" count me in.

being a patsy is liberal, counting you in.
Waiting until it's too late and then crying about why don't someone do something is liberal. counting you in again.

 

[Flopper]

Problem with medicare for all is that health care professionals would have to eventually work for about the same $15/hr that the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds would make.
(As dictated by the EXACT SAME Socialists).

If a person can make the same or better living without 8 - 10 years of schooling, it won't be long until there's a critical shortage of health care professionals and the burger flippers are moving into brain surgery on their GED.

While this wouldn't affect most on the Left....it would certainly affect those of us that think.

My primary care physician here in the USA is a (wait for it.......) CANADIAN. Wonder why ?????

Socialism: No matter how many different color sprinkles they put on a pile of shit (Socialism).....it's STILL.....a pile of shit.

Medicare for All means single payer and universal coverage. There are a number of plans but those plans lack the detail to make any forecast on what the effect would be on healthcare professionals. If Medicare for All turns out to be a gradually lowering of the eligible age for Medicare there will be little effect on healthcare professional and a gradual increase in government spending and taxes. Political hype during a political campaign has little resemblance to actual legislation.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Medicare for All means single payer and universal coverage. There are a number of plans but those plans lack the detail to make any forecast on what the effect would be on healthcare professionals. If Medicare for All turns out to be a gradually lowering of the eligible age for Medicare there will be little effect on healthcare professional and a gradual increase in government spending and taxes. Political hype during a political campaign has little resemblance to actual legislation.

If the iceberg the Titanic struck had been your point, the Titanic would have arrived in America just fine.
Medicare for all does not mean "lowering of the eligible age". That is how Socialists would want you to believe.
Medicare for all means a massive increase in government spending coupled with a massive increase in taxation to pay for it.

Do you really believe that no pricing controls would accompany such a measure? Seriously? Are you familiar with what Socialists do? Socialists ALWAYS paint ugly realities with rose colored fantasies in order to seduce the masses into falling for their bait.
Pricing controls would mean professional wages would take a hit.

Again....this is what Socialists want everyone to believe. In reality......it's just propaganda.

NAME ONE country with Socialized health care where there are no pricing controls.

 

[Flopper]

Medicare for All means single payer and universal coverage. There are a number of plans but those plans lack the detail to make any forecast on what the effect would be on healthcare professionals. If Medicare for All turns out to be a gradually lowering of the eligible age for Medicare there will be little effect on healthcare professional and a gradual increase in government spending and taxes. Political hype during a political campaign has little resemblance to actual legislation.

If the iceberg the Titanic struck had been your point, the Titanic would have arrived in America just fine.
Medicare for all does not mean "lowering of the eligible age". That is how Socialists would want you to believe.
Medicare for all means a massive increase in government spending coupled with a massive increase in taxation to pay for it.

Do you really believe that no pricing controls would accompany such a measure? Seriously? Are you familiar with what Socialists do? Socialists ALWAYS paint ugly realities with rose colored fantasies in order to seduce the masses into falling for their bait.
Pricing controls would mean professional wages would take a hit.

Again....this is what Socialists want everyone to believe. In reality......it's just propaganda.

NAME ONE country with Socialized health care where there are no pricing controls.

If you take the time to read what the candidates propose you will see they are miles apart. Only Sanders and Warren propose abolishing private insurance. Medicare and Medicaid has increased their coverage to 74 million people without government price controls and there is no reason to expect price controls will be implemented as the number rises.

If Medicare for All were implement to cover everyone, doctors would get paid Medicare rates for all their patients. That would be a hit for doctors who treat lots of privately insured out of network patients. However most privately insured patients stay in network where reimbursement rates are generally very close to medicare rates. Doctors who treat lots of Medicaid patients would see an increase pay.

What is often overlooked is that doctors and hospitals write off about 50 billion dollars a year in unpaid medical bills. Under Medicare for All, that would increase revenue by 50 billion. In the US, we spend 496 billion dollars a year on medical billing. A single payer system would reduce those cost by 150 to 200 billion a year. That would increase the bottom line for both doctors and hospitals.

Most people with private insurance need to stay within a network to keep their costs down. This reduces available doctors to about 10% to 40% of doctors within a city. So if a patient needs to see a specialist, they are limited to those the insurance has chosen. With Medicare, that goes away because 96% of doctors accept Medicare. So patients don't have to wait as long to see a doctor and doctors are able to see more patients.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

What they promise and what you will get is two different things!

1. It is not Medicare but Universal Healthcare, so let call it what it is!

2. The Universal Healthcare will be patterned after the VA system and your healthcare will be rationed.

3. Anyone that believe the Federal Government should run a National Healthcare system should view how the VA is ran and if you want Medicare then remember under our Medicare system you will carry a supplemental plan b insurance while also taxing you more...

 

[the other mike]

What they promise and what you will get is two different things!

1. It is not Medicare but Universal Healthcare, so let call it what it is!

2. The Universal Healthcare will be patterned after the VA system and your healthcare will be rationed.

3. Anyone that believe the Federal Government should run a National Healthcare system should view how the VA is ran and if you want Medicare then remember under our Medicare system you will carry a supplemental plan b insurance while also taxing you more...

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.

The current system as it is will remain largely in place , the difference being we're gradually eliminating the insurance companies. Eliminating the middle man like self check-outs basically.

We are not going to shut down 5600 hospitals.

 

[Thinker101]

What they promise and what you will get is two different things!

1. It is not Medicare but Universal Healthcare, so let call it what it is!

2. The Universal Healthcare will be patterned after the VA system and your healthcare will be rationed.

3. Anyone that believe the Federal Government should run a National Healthcare system should view how the VA is ran and if you want Medicare then remember under our Medicare system you will carry a supplemental plan b insurance while also taxing you more...

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.

The current system as it is will remain largely in place , the difference being we're gradually eliminating the insurance companies. Eliminating the middle man like self check-outs basically.

We are not going to shut down 5600 hospitals.

Sure "largely in place", but vacant....dumbass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/would-medicare-for-all-mean-hospitals-none/

Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’

Medicare for All would shutter rural hospitals

 

[the other mike]

Sure "largely in place", but vacant....dumbass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/would-medicare-for-all-mean-hospitals-none/

Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’

Medicare for All would shutter rural hospitals

I'm a dumbass ?

Two of your three propaganda links are from the NY Times and the Washington Post,
and you proudly post them with a straight face as if you have any
actual clue wtf you'te talking about.

 

[Thinker101]

Sure "largely in place", but vacant....dumbass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/would-medicare-for-all-mean-hospitals-none/

Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’

Medicare for All would shutter rural hospitals

I'm a dumbass ?

Two of your three propaganda links are from the NY Times and the Washington Post,
and you proudly post them with a straight face as if you have any
actual clue wtf you'te talking about.

Seriously? You could have done your own search before saying something so fricken stupkd.

This Is The Part Of 'Medicare For All' That You Never Hear About | HuffPost

'Medicare for All' would reduce hospital operating margins by more than 20 percent, analysis finds: A "Medicare for All" health insurance system would take a significant toll on hospital revenues and net operating margins, according to a new Navigant analysis.

Dem Candidate: ‘Medicare For All Would Have Every Hospital Close!’

Hospitals Predict Grim Future Of Closures, Lay-Offs If ‘Medicare For All’ Plan Takes Root

 

[the other mike]

Seriously? You could have done your own search before saying something so fricken stupkd.

This Is The Part Of 'Medicare For All' That You Never Hear About | HuffPost

'Medicare for All' would reduce hospital operating margins by more than 20 percent, analysis finds: A "Medicare for All" health insurance system would take a significant toll on hospital revenues and net operating margins, according to a new Navigant analysis.

Dem Candidate: ‘Medicare For All Would Have Every Hospital Close!’

Hospitals Predict Grim Future Of Closures, Lay-Offs If ‘Medicare For All’ Plan Takes Root

You don't know propaganda when you see it ?

 

[the other mike]

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

 

[Thinker101]

Seriously? You could have done your own search before saying something so fricken stupkd.

This Is The Part Of 'Medicare For All' That You Never Hear About | HuffPost

'Medicare for All' would reduce hospital operating margins by more than 20 percent, analysis finds: A "Medicare for All" health insurance system would take a significant toll on hospital revenues and net operating margins, according to a new Navigant analysis.

Dem Candidate: ‘Medicare For All Would Have Every Hospital Close!’

Hospitals Predict Grim Future Of Closures, Lay-Offs If ‘Medicare For All’ Plan Takes Root

You don't know propaganda when you see it ?

Sure, what the heck we should all believe you, some dumbass liberal.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If you take the time to read what the candidates propose you will see they are miles apart. Only Sanders and Warren propose abolishing private insurance. Medicare and Medicaid has increased their coverage to 74 million people without government price controls and there is no reason to expect price controls will be implemented as the number rises.

If Medicare for All were implement to cover everyone, doctors would get paid Medicare rates for all their patients. That would be a hit for doctors who treat lots of privately insured out of network patients. However most privately insured patients stay in network where reimbursement rates are generally very close to medicare rates. Doctors who treat lots of Medicaid patients would see an increase pay.

What is often overlooked is that doctors and hospitals write off about 50 billion dollars a year in unpaid medical bills. Under Medicare for All, that would increase revenue by 50 billion. In the US, we spend 496 billion dollars a year on medical billing. A single payer system would reduce those cost by 150 to 200 billion a year. That would increase the bottom line for both doctors and hospitals.

Most people with private insurance need to stay within a network to keep their costs down. This reduces available doctors to about 10% to 40% of doctors within a city. So if a patient needs to see a specialist, they are limited to those the insurance has chosen. With Medicare, that goes away because 96% of doctors accept Medicare. So patients don't have to wait as long to see a doctor and doctors are able to see more patients.

At least you back up what you say with some thoughtful insight. Unlike so many on the Left.
For that I give you credit.

I read this. I will give it some thought.

 

[Slyhunter]

Bernie says everyone who makes more than 29k a year will get a tax increase.
Bernie says everyone who works for a living will earn a minimum wage of $15 an hour
15 * 40 * 52 = 31,200 so everyone will pay more in taxes.