Universal Healthcare

[Sirthinksalot]

He thinks because the company pays for it, it does not come from him. It is part of his compensation. If we had universal, he could get a raise and have complete coverage.

Yeah, a massive raise in his taxes and complete shit coverage!

[Lightbringer]

Oh ffs, 11 pages of total horseshit. I want the last two minutes of my life back. Out of all of you here only one of you got it right, Twitler.

For the sake of argument assume Medicaid is expanded to cover everyone. This would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because at that point we'd have a single-payer system. Taxes are collected (and yes, they would have to go up), services are rendered and doctors invoice the government who then pay the doctors. Do not assume anything other than that is happening. Is that socialist?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

[kudzu]

Oh ffs, 11 pages of total horseshit. I want the last two minutes of my life back. Out of all of you here only one of you got it right, Twitler.

For the sake of argument assume Medicaid is expanded to cover everyone. This would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because at that point we'd have a single-payer system. Taxes are collected (and yes, they would have to go up), services are rendered and doctors invoice the government who then pay the doctors. Do not assume anything other than that is happening. Is that socialist?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

You could also raise the cap on Payroll Taxes to $150K..

In any event Medicare for all would immediately be 30% cheaper.

[CFM]

You could also raise the cap on Payroll Taxes to $150K..

In any event Medicare for all would immediately be 30% cheaper.

I ran some numbers through the Social Security calculator using the same date of birth and same retirement date. Both sample people were 65 years old. The only difference was the amount entered in the "Earnings in the current year" box. Sample Person 1 had $100,000 and Sample Person 2 had $33,333 or 1/3 of Person 1. What I found was that Person 1 would not receive 3x the distribution as Person 2 despite the contributions, based on income, being 3x more from Person 2. Person 1 would get $2,007/month. Person 2 would get $985/month.

Why shouldn't Person 1 get $2955, 3x that of Person 2 when the contributions each put in were a 3:1 ratio?

If the cap to contribute goes up, does that distribution amount go up proportionally or is that just a way for those on the upper end to continue to support those on the lower end?

Medicare for all would result in 100% cheaper quality care.

[Robo]

For the sake of argument assume Medicaid is expanded to cover everyone. This would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because at that point we'd have a single-payer system.

Expanding Medicaid eliminates the need for Medicaid??? Explain how that works, I'm curious.

Taxes are collected (and yes, they would have to go up), services are rendered and doctors invoice the government who then pay the doctors. Do not assume anything other than that is happening. Is that socialist?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

A Resounding YES!!!!! It's government ownership and control over the means of healthcare production and distribution. That's the definition of "SOCIALISM!!!"

[kudzu]

Expanding Medicaid eliminates the need for Medicaid??? Explain how that works, I'm curious.



A Resounding YES!!!!! It's government ownership and control over the means of healthcare production and distribution. That's the definition of "SOCIALISM!!!"

No. Its not socialism.. The government does not employ the doctors or own the facilities.

[Lightbringer]

Expanding Medicaid eliminates the need for Medicaid??? Explain how that works, I'm curious.



A Resounding YES!!!!! It's government ownership and control over the means of healthcare production and distribution. That's the definition of "SOCIALISM!!!"

1. Expansion of Medicaid is a euphemism for single-payer, once everyone is on the same program you don't need separate programs. We could still call it Medicaid of course but it would cease to exist as it does now.

2. Remember I said do not assume anything else is happening. Collecting taxes and spending is not socialism, if it were every government ever all throughout history would be socialist.

[Robo]

You could also raise the cap on Payroll Taxes to $150K..

In any event Medicare for all would immediately be 30% cheaper.

It will be interesting to watch y'all neo-communist try to defend single payer when your ass is waiting months for healthcare services and condemned to having to go to Mexico for a critical operation to save your life. Not just that, but watching y'all explain to those socialist European so-called "allies" why America isn't able to protect their asses anymore because we're bankrupted. Sure as hell y'all ain't about to give up your "Single Payer" garbage healthcare to defend the western world, huh? 21 trillion in debt now and y'all assholes think you can have healthcare free. You have NO clue what it's gonna cost you!!!

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free!" (P.J. O'Roarke)

[CFM]

No. Its not socialism.. The government does not employ the doctors or own the facilities.

They don't have to for it to be socialism. You and your degenerate kind are the reason why socialism has been able to take such a hold. You idiots refuse to call it what it is.

[CFM]

It will be interesting to watch y'all neo-communist try to defend single payer when your ass is waiting months for healthcare services and condemned to having to go to Mexico for a critical operation to save your life. Not just that, but watching y'all explain to those socialist European so-called "allies" why America isn't able to protect their asses anymore because we're bankrupted. Sure as hell y'all ain't about to give up your "Single Payer" garbage healthcare to defend the western world, huh? 21 trillion in debt now and y'all assholes think you can have healthcare free. You have NO clue what it's gonna cost you!!!

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free!" (P.J. O'Roarke)

Their answer is to constantly raise taxes on someone else. I don't recall ever hearing one of them that claimed they care about those without coverage volunteering to pay the premiums on someone else's behalf. Have you?

[Robo]

No. Its not socialism.. The government does not employ the doctors or own the facilities.

They just "PAY" the doctors, right? That friend is the definition of "E-M-P-L-O-Y-M-E-N-T." They don't just pay the doctors, they tell the doctors "HOW MUCH" they're gonna pay them, what they can and cannot do for their pay checks and what equipment they can have, how many nurses they can have, what their going to be paid, what procedures they can and cannot perform, on who and when they have to just let your sorry ass die, because you're to old or cost too much to fix what ales your sorry ass. That's S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M friend!!!!!

[Guno צְבִי]

It will be interesting to watch y'all neo-communist try to defend single payer when your ass is waiting months for healthcare services and condemned to having to go to Mexico for a critical operation to save your life. Not just that, but watching y'all explain to those socialist European so-called "allies" why America isn't able to protect their asses anymore because we're bankrupted. Sure as hell y'all ain't about to give up your "Single Payer" garbage healthcare to defend the western world, huh? 21 trillion in debt now and y'all assholes think you can have healthcare free. You have NO clue what it's gonna cost you!!!

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free!" (P.J. O'Roarke)

" y'all " crackas in jesusland have no trouble mooching off the blue states

[CFM]

1. Expansion of Medicaid is a euphemism for single-payer, once everyone is on the same program you don't need separate programs. We could still call it Medicaid of course but it would cease to exist as it does now.

2. Remember I said do not assume anything else is happening. Collecting taxes and spending is not socialism, if it were every government ever all throughout history would be socialist.

1) There will still be people not contributing to the system that will receive the same things as those who do. One argument by those in favor single payer is that the system we currently have involves transferring the costs from those that don't have coverage to those that do. How would that be any different?

2) Redistribution of wealth is socialism. When those taxes are taken from a group those doing the taking think have too much and used to provide things those doing the taking think have too little, that's socialism. When those receiving things funded by taxes they don't pay, that's socialism. How many of those receiving food stamps pay into the pot which funds food stamps?

[CFM]

" y'all " crackas in jesusland have no trouble mooching off the blue states

The moochers in my State are in the only blue area of State. BTW, it's also a majority minority gerrymandered district with a 60% black population.

1 in every 3 1/2 black people use food stamps. They overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Guess we know who the real moochers are don't we?

[kudzu]

They just "PAY" the doctors, right? That friend is the definition of "E-M-P-L-O-Y-M-E-N-T." They don't just pay the doctors, they tell the doctors "HOW MUCH" they're gonna pay them, what they can and cannot do for their pay checks and what equipment they can have, how many nurses they can have, what their going to be paid, what procedures they can and cannot perform, on who and when they have to just let your sorry ass die, because you're to old or cost too much to fix what ales your sorry ass. That's S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M friend!!!!!

No.. they do not employ the doctors anymore than insurance companies PAY them as employees.

Private delivery-single payer is not socialism.

The insurance companies already determine what they will pay for a procedure or surgery.