I'll be danged - Republicans may have it right on a health system!

[Dagosa]

You're a bright one aren't you? (sarcasm) "States"

Unless you think the Fed is the same as state and local government. The market has more to say about private insurance healthcare costs.

 

[Dagosa]

No, the postal workers retirement pre-funding is no longer at issue. It's largely been paid for by public subsidies and some private support. Plus, it's turned out to be largely overblown to begin with. Email and Facebook continue replacing much of what used to be done through first class mail (always the postal service's real bread & butter) so they've had to make cuts. Yes, FedEx and Amazon getting away with paying drivers as subcontractors and just using the postal service as their rural delivery ***** all these years doesn't help either. UPS and the Postal Service have generally worked far more cooperatively.

Oh, and the real reason Medicare still can't negotiate drug prices?

Not just Republicans. Democrats have sought permission from Big Pharma:

….in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does.

This was meant to bankrupt it so it’s business could be privatized for profit. Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.

Because of this stupid GOP led law, the USPO is forced to require gov subsidies they normally WOULD NOT NEED .
Another example how the GOP is pissing away tax payer dollars.

 

[Dagosa]

Snore
Look, you're ranting about Medicare -- something that currently exists. The "Medicare for All" plan I'm discussing is very different and obviously does not currently exist. Apples and Oranges. So kindly cut the know-it-all crap. I get it. Your ego is huge and must out.

Medicare is optional….The ACA is optional as well. The public option which is gov funded that Obama wanted, WOULD ALSO BE OPTIONAL.

 

[Dagosa]

Snore
Look, you're ranting about Medicare -- something that currently exists. The "Medicare for All" plan I'm discussing is very different and obviously does not currently exist. Apples and Oranges. So kindly cut the know-it-all crap. I get it. Your ego is huge and must out.

Medicare is Medicare….it’s not a different insurance plan.
Medicare for all would be an easier passage because it’s already passed the muster of the SC. Medicare is already available for those over 65 and those under by application who are collecting disability. Medicare for all simply requires expanding the age limits.
We can’t make it a very different plan and expect easy passage. Btw, who but democrats ever proposed it ? Bernie understood that it’s an easier passage then reinventing the wheel. The vast majority in Medicare like it far more then the private insurance they had .

 

[Dagosa]

So kindly cut the know-it-all crap.

What we don’t know, we should just look up. So it’s not me who is making these points, it’s the sources.

 

[Dagosa]

Oh look, you're in kindergarten I do ACA and Medicare everyday spanky, there iss nothing you can teach me.

Wrong. The government sets the rates for Medicare enrollees , not private insurance
Nope, rates are filed in the state the company is doing business in.

You can go to any participating doctor in the united states

Only with the Medicare Supplements, not the other plans.


Under Medicare, you can go to Johns Hopkins, Mass General or UCLA med to get the best care available, all self referral.

Nope. ONLY with Medicare Supplemental plans, not the other coverages.

ACA is not Medicare.

Never said it was. The ACA is Bammy's baby.
As for the ACA plans rate increases are either approved at the State level (9.9%) or less, or HHS (10% or more). The ACA also stipulates that 80 cents of every Prem dollar collected must be spent on claims. That leaves 20 cents on the dollar to pay ALL of the administrative costs. Pretty skinny margin there pop.

Lot of babble…..bottom line, Obama wanted the public Option and nearly every dem and liberal would want Medicare for all. Even Obama says it’s a good idea. The only ones fking everything up, are repugnants who have no plan, none, zippo….other then dumping more money into the private sector where now, we pay more per capita for healthcare then anyother country in the world. All because of the GOP.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

**** no. Get rid of employer based healthcare instead.

Why be against an employer who wants to provide coverage for his/her eimployees?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Lot of babble…..bottom line, Obama wanted the public Option and nearly every dem and liberal would want Medicare for all. Even Obama says it’s a good idea. The only ones fking everything up, are repugnants who have no plan, none, zippo….other then dumping more money into the private sector where now, we pay more per capita for healthcare then anyother country in the world. All because of the GOP.

I am not a Pub, I could care less what Obambi wanted . Tell Biden to fix it now while you have both Houses kiddo.

 

[Dagosa]

I am not a Pub, I could care less what Obambi wanted . Tell Biden to fix it now while you have both Houses kiddo.

Biden doesn’t have a majority. Manchin is from a red state and does nothing his constituents don’t want. It’s 50-50. Maybe you didn’t notice. You talk like Dems are actually in control of items like healthcare. Repugs promised better healthcare, had an actual majority for two years. Nothing.


Joe got infrastructure passed, had to deal with a Trump recession and a Trump inspired Putin invasion of Ukraine.

 

[Dagosa]

Why be against an employer who wants to provide coverage for his/her eimployees?

Ha ha
Really. There are no employers who want to provide healthcare. They are forced to by the tax breaks they get in providing benefits for both healthcare and retirement.

 

[Dagosa]

**** no. Get rid of employer based healthcare instead.

I agree with getting rid of employer based healthcare. When employees loose their jobs during a recession, they need something. They also work at jobs they don’t like, just for the HC benefits. Healthcare is a right that should not be related to your employment status….

 

[Dagosa]

Does Medicare still pay so little that providers lose money treating the patients?

Exactly.
Clearly not. Many providers find Medicare seldom refuses treatments that private insurance might question. And, just like social security, the check is always for coming. And, you can go anywhere that accepts your Medicare coverage.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Exactly.
Clearly not. Many providers find Medicare seldom refuses treatments that private insurance might question. And, just like social security, the check is always for coming. And, you can go anywhere that accepts your Medicare coverage.

So...did you READ what you quoted?

 

[Grumblenuts]

….in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does.

This was meant to bankrupt it so it’s business could be privatized for profit. Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.

Because of this stupid GOP led law, the USPO is forced to require gov subsidies they normally WOULD NOT NEED .
Another example how the GOP is pissing away tax payer dollars.

Yeah, that's very old news, pops. It's 2022 now. Things have changed. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that much of the whining back then was overblown for strictly political purposes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ha ha
Really. There are no employers who want to provide healthcare. They are forced to by the tax breaks they get in providing benefits for both healthcare and retirement.

It's really like much else. Big Corporations want ever more regulation and abstraction because they can easily afford the additional costs while smaller competitors find it all ridiculous and prohibitive. That's how the Big fish drive the little ones out of business and force them to sell out at a huge discount. There really is such a thing as being too Big and having too much.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Medicare is Medicare….it’s not a different insurance plan.
Medicare for all would be an easier passage because it’s already passed the muster of the SC. Medicare is already available for those over 65 and those under by application who are collecting disability. Medicare for all simply requires expanding the age limits.
We can’t make it a very different plan and expect easy passage. Btw, who but democrats ever proposed it ? Bernie understood that it’s an easier passage then reinventing the wheel. The vast majority in Medicare like it far more then the private insurance they had .

Fine, but it is not simply expanding the age limits. Trusting baby steps to get us to actual "Medicare for All" -- which is not simply "Medicare" -- won't get us there. Nothing like Bernie's actual plan, nor other's. The time for pissing around and asking the wolves for their permission is long gone. We'll never get there that way. Fifty-five vs. sixty-five would not rid us of any wolves nor their corruption of government.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why be against an employer who wants to provide coverage for his/her eimployees?

They'll always have the option of simply paying their employees more instead and with much less bother. They wouldn't even need to bother with finding "coverage" for themselves anymore.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When I say "Medicare for All" I'm talking Sanders and Jayapal. The other plans are just BS engineered to fail. From 2019:

the Democrats’ plans differ significantly in how they handle important decisions, like which public health program to expand and how aggressively to extend the reach of government. Some would completely eliminate private health insurance, moving all Americans to government-run coverage, whereas others still see a role for companies providing coverage to workers.

Some bills require significant tax increases to pay for the expansion of benefits — while others ask those signing up for government insurance to pay the costs.

"Some would completely eliminate private health insurance, moving all Americans to government-run coverage" -- false.
They completely eliminate any need for private health insurance. But, for example, nothing in them would prevent insurance companies from offering additional (exotic) benefits to rich people if they so chose. Medicare for All would be to provide a solid foundation, like Social Security, not some mandate to eliminate every peccadillo or frill.

 

[Dagosa]

Yeah, that's very old news, pops. It's 2022 now. Things have changed. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that much of the whining back then was overblown for strictly political purposes.

Yeah, that's very old news, pops. It's 2022 now. Things have changed. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that much of the whining back then was overblown for strictly political purposes.

You keep saying, things have changed. Nothing has change except that the USPO which used to make a profit, no longer can and needs govt taxpayer subsidies. Why ? For the same 2006 GOP requirement. Maybe you like paying more taxes because of artificial gop meddling like others may like to pay higher copays because Medicare can’t negotiate drug prices. Another GOP meddling which leads to increased fees and local and state and federal taxes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You keep saying, things have changed. Nothing has change except that the USPO which used to make a profit, no longer can and needs govt taxpayer subsidies.

I wasn't asking or simply offering my opinion. I've researched it. But don't believe me. I don't care. You're welcome. Research it yourself.