The ACA-their wealth, your slavery.

[Mac1958]

Moving to a healthcare system like that of all other advanced post industrial nations terrifies the holy shit out of the donor/political/corporate class. They need control over your access to healthcare. That is the new slavery. Most folks need to subjugate themselves to an employer for access to healthcare, whatever plan the employer decides to offer them. Let's recall that the ACA is a Heritage Foundation approach, and it still, as it has worked out, puts profiteers between you and your doctor.

Are under the impression that Single Payer, aka "Medicare for All", would eliminate the profiteers? Do you know how Medicare works?

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || CMA

Medicare doesn't remove insurance industry profits from health care.

I've taken Medicare training every year since 2005. I was the financial guy in the room for a Fortune 100 Medicare insurer when it was putting together Medicare Advantage plans for my state for five years. I know these things inside and out.

I'm against Single Payer, which is not "Medicare for All", despite what Bernie Sanders says. That's why I specifically advocate for a full expansion of the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system. That's the specific phrase I use every time I discuss this. That is not Single Payer.
.

Then at least we agree on the facts. Medicare for all isn't government health insurance. It's government taking our tax money and buying insurance on our behalf. What could go wrong?

Allowing concentrated corporate wealth and power to handle it must be the answer. We have a voice there at least. And we must continue to elect to office those who do not believe a govt of/by/for the people can work, so they can make sure it doesn't.

Rather than either/or, one or the other, we could probably find a point of equilibrium between the two.

Expanding the popular, already-functioning, public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system to replace our ridiculous seven-headed beast of a system, for example.
.

 

[dblack]

Moving to a healthcare system like that of all other advanced post industrial nations terrifies the holy shit out of the donor/political/corporate class. They need control over your access to healthcare. That is the new slavery. Most folks need to subjugate themselves to an employer for access to healthcare, whatever plan the employer decides to offer them. Let's recall that the ACA is a Heritage Foundation approach, and it still, as it has worked out, puts profiteers between you and your doctor.

Are under the impression that Single Payer, aka "Medicare for All", would eliminate the profiteers? Do you know how Medicare works?

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || CMA

Medicare doesn't remove insurance industry profits from health care.

I've taken Medicare training every year since 2005. I was the financial guy in the room for a Fortune 100 Medicare insurer when it was putting together Medicare Advantage plans for my state for five years. I know these things inside and out.

I'm against Single Payer, which is not "Medicare for All", despite what Bernie Sanders says. That's why I specifically advocate for a full expansion of the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system. That's the specific phrase I use every time I discuss this. That is not Single Payer.
.

Then at least we agree on the facts. Medicare for all isn't government health insurance. It's government taking our tax money and buying insurance on our behalf. What could go wrong?

Allowing concentrated corporate wealth and power to handle it must be the answer. We have a voice there at least. And we must continue to elect to office those who do not believe a govt of/by/for the people can work, so they can make sure it doesn't.

Rather than either/or, one or the other, we could probably find a point of equilibrium between the two.

We could also reject both.

Expanding the popular, already-functioning, public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system to replace our ridiculous seven-headed beast of a system, for example.
.

And give up control over my own health care? No thanks.

 

[Ray9]

The government will destroy healthcare in the United States just like it has destroyed nearly everything it has got its hands on because It goes after the effect not the cause of bad health. We need to lead the way here not follow failed European models. Here is wisdom: We need to involve the free market and the trillions that are lining the pockets of poison manufacturers like tobacco and alcohol.

The technology exists to require special credit cards to purchase tobacco and alcohol that are connected directly to personal health savings accounts of users. First double the cost of a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes. When users purchase the products the extra money goes into an account in their name that collects interest.

This will have two effects. It will pay for the medical expenses of the sickest among us and it will discourage the use of these poisons. In a generation it will relieve pressure on the medical infrastructure that is today at a critical stage.

No one is being ordered not to do anything. They can drink and smoke to their heart's content. They pay through the nose to save their hearts and livers. The federal government has no involvement. The states control and enforce the levies.

The people pay at the pump. This is just a start. There are many creative ways to pay for citizen healthcare that do not require a corrupt central authority.