Dem's Confuse Themselves Between The Endless Bucket Of Money and Real Market Competiton


#1

32 trillion over the first 10 years… NNNNNooooo Problemo…


#2

Once again a legislator fails to loon at the entire picture. Like debt, 20 trillion. Th long term debt of both medical and SS not to mention medicaid.


#3

I think if I remember correctly that SS was actually very solvent. Well if they hadn’t taken all the damn money out of it for other reasons.
I could be wrong though… nahhh…
Other Countries have no problem paying for it, why does America - the richest country - not have the money?
@Scott It really is NO PROBLEM…


#4

LOL, she said she’s going to be on Medicare in a few years. I mean, she’s a millionaire who has only ever worked in govt and so her money came from taxpayers, but that’s OK, society will still pay for everything. What a retard.


#5

Please don’t use the ‘r word’; I have worked with the developmentally disabled. Please call them by their correct name- Democrats.


#6

Only for the believer in MMT and a credit based economy…


#7

If you read the history of ss you will see they have been raiding ss funds since it’s inception.

SS is solvent only as they collect enough in taxes to pay the bill,

it’s commonly referred to as a pay as you go system.


#8

If that wasn’t so damn funny - I might have been alittle mad.


#9

That is what I was saying. SS would have been fine - had they not had the hand in to cookie jar.


#10

Not sure what that is?


#11

Flogging an old horse, but there is an excellent article in The Nation pointing out the difficulties in a sudden shift to Medicare for All. It is written by an advocate for universal health care, but it points out the problems for progressives in pushing Medicare for All without realizing the difficulties that would follow. The majority of people are reasonably content with their current health care financing situation and they are risk averse to any changes.

All of the other countries that moved to universal health coverage did it when the health care share of GDP was much smaller and none were approaching the 18% share of GDP that the USA has.

We need to remember that the two greatest electoral debacles for the Democratic party and progressive causes were the mid-terms in 1994 and 2010 and those debacles were triggered by reaction to health care reform. I am hoping that 2018 will hold the same lesson for the GOP about the dangers of fiddling with the health care system in ways that annoy or frighten people.

I am putting in a link to the article in The Nation and a graphic from the article which is actually one put together by WHO and the OECD regularly. It shows that out of pocket costs in the USA, in aggregate, are actually a lower percentage of health care costs than in the rest of the OECD countries, one of the reasons that those who have good insurance are scared about any changes.

Also I am putting in a link to a humorous youtube explanation of why health care costs in the USA are so high. It is a good way to spend 7 minutes if you want to talk about the financing of health care in the USA.


#12
  1. Cost to the government/taxes.
  2. Cost to the users.
  3. How to find that many doctors that will accept medicare patients.

Not to mention the 20Trillion in accumulated debt.


#13

Did you read the article? Nope.


#14

From the article:

An obvious alternative to moving everyone into Medicare is to simply open up the program and allow individuals and employers to buy into it. We could then subsidize the premiums on a sliding scale. But recent experience with the ACA suggests that this kind of voluntary buy-in won’t cover everyone, or spread out the risk over the entire population.

Keep the employer and individual mandate. Add a public option that employers can purchase for their employees that fulfills the mandate; also let individuals buy the public option. Don’t link it to Medicare in any way because that will frighten all the retirees and the Dems lose again. However, like Medicare, structure a bunch of useful insurance options that employers and individuals can add-on to the base policy.

It will take a while for the momentum/enrollment to grow, but as it grows, barriers to transitioning to single payer melt. Hell, you may not even need to officially transition because the old for-profit/self-insured model will just die away if the public option actually is a better choice.


#15

Thank you for reminding us all why our politics will not let this happen in the for-seeable future. Obama had to make a deal with the devil to push the rock up the hill. Now that the insurance industry is invested in seeing the ACA succeed, it will be harder to get rid of them. Although I think they will hold off any kind of public option in the short term, the notion that health care should be universal has stuck, as evidenced by the GOP’s inability to get rid of it. We have, as a nation, appeared to have made a small psychological leap forward. Unfortunately, along with a system that should keep moving towards coverage for all comes the higher costs associated with the particular industry that is managing it and profiting from it.

They aren’t going away quietly.


#16

Certainly no sudden shift to Medicare for All - that is more than a bit of a straw man argument.

As a long term aspirational goal for the party it still makes sense.

People believe in providing universal health care, even the Republicans (aka Trump) ran on promising something very like it.

It would be foolish to not to take up the new-found popularity of the ACA, and start pushing longer term goals.

For sure no major restructuring of the health care system is going to come about by simply crafting a new bill by a new Congress. It will require years of preparation in building public support.

Democrats do need a popular “brand”. Broad Incrementalism is good policy, but useless as a campaign slogan.


#17

Do you even understand how much medicare costs today and how it is funded??

Do you have a clue as to how many doctors reject the ACA insurance, medicaid and medicare???


#18

I believe my state has it through United… Not bad, huh?
Is it because of price, or hassle of getting paid. That the Doc’s don’t take it?


#19

Many of the doctors like mine reject ACA insurance because of delayed payments, reimbursement amounts. He was a Cigna provider and Cigna tried to force all approved doctors to accept ACA patients many dropped Cigna and refuse all cigna patients.

As to medicaid, low reimbursements. Same for medicare. If your a patient today and turn 65 have medicare he will keep you and accept medicare. He accepts no new medicare patients.


#20

Who’d have ever thought that in America we would see a medical care black market. But boys and girls it’s on it’s way. It’s on it’s way big time.