JoeAverage

I get that Will. Just willing to look at the numbers on a personal level at the consequences. Medicare for All right now: Bad= our household healthcare costs would triple due to household income. Medicare for All in the future: (after we retire) Good=someone else can pay our $390k in healthcare costs in retirement. I can't help but to turn lemons into lemonade. It's how we roll.

This number is pretty high under our current system: A healthy 65-year-old couple retiring in 2019 will need close to $390,000 to cover health-care expenses, including Medicare Parts B and D, according to HealthView Services.Jul 18, 2019 ( I see several numbers on the web of what this cost would be) I have no idea if that includes any type of assisted living facility or long term memory care which can run $5k to $10k a month for a couple. It doesn't say much for Medicare, pay in your whole life then go broke because of Medicare. Any idea how many Americans can actually afford that much? LOL, getting close enough to retirement that I just might be willing to let someone else pay for our healthcare. We could travel quite a bit with $390k or leave it to the kids and grandkids.

Just a few possible problems with Universal healthcare. List of the Cons of Universal Health Care 1. It requires people to pay for services they do not receive. In the United States, about 5% of people consume about 50% of the health care costs which are generated each year. On the other end of the spectrum, the healthiest 50% of the population consumes just 3% of the health care costs in the country. In a system of universal health care, those who are healthy and wealthy are asked to care for those who are poor and sick. That can be difficult to accept since most chronic diseases can be prevented with simple lifestyle modifications. 2. It may stop people from being careful about their health. When a system of universal health care is present, the general population may not treat their health as wisely as they would if the direct costs of their choices were their personal responsibility. There is no financial incentive for someone to stay healthy in such a system. That means people might schedule an appointment for any reason at all or not take care of themselves as they probably should. 3. It may limit the accuracy of patient care. Doctors make a lot of money in a free-market system of health care when they are able to provide needed services to patients who require them. Within a system of universal health care, doctors are often assigned more patients than they can legitimately handle. They rush through the interview and diagnostic process, looking for the most likely explanation of bothersome symptoms instead of offering a thorough exam. In some ways, the costs of universal care could be higher on a personal level than they are in other systems. 4. It may have long wait times. For elective procedures within a universal health care system, the wait times can be extremely long. Some elective procedures may require 9-12 months of waiting before they can be scheduled. In Canada, the wait times to see a specialist can even be long for some patients, with some people waiting almost 40 weeks to see someone for a health concern. That is because the primary goal of a universal system of care is to provide basic care and emergency care only. 5. It limits the payouts which doctors receive. Even in the limited universal care options that are available in the U.S., doctors receive a limited compensation amount. That keeps costs for care lower for the patient. It is also a reason why quality services are not always provided. Doctors have their own costs to consider, so they may spend less time with their patients to improve their billable hours or reduce their own personal costs of providing care. 6. It can limit new technologies. Because there is such a drive to keep costs down, innovation can fall behind in a universal system of health care compare to a free-market system. That is because there is less funding available to research new technologies within the field. Over time, the lack of funding in research and development could actually cost more lives than are saved by the expanded access to care. 7. It requires significant budgeting skills. In Canada, the costs of health care can be as much as 40% of the government’s annual budget at the provincial level. Without strong management skills, the high costs associated with providing universal care can quickly overrun the budget, which reduces services in other areas. That often puts infrastructure and education funding at risk if health care costs are higher than anticipated. 8. It may limit services. As another cost-savings measure, a system of universal care may restrict access to certain procedures or medications if the chances of patient success are minimal. These systems might choose palliative care over life-saving measures. They might choose to require patients with rare conditions to privately pay for expensive medications. About 25% of the costs found in the Medicare budget each year are directed toward people in the last 6 years of their life. One easy way to save money would be to limit the care that group of people receives. 9. It may offer multiple systems of coverage, which increase patient costs. Most countries still try to keep competition in the field of medicine, so they introduce various structures to complement their system of universal care. There may be pre-pay options, private insurance models, supplemental insurance plans, or expanded choice opportunities available. If families are stuck paying taxes on basic health and emergency care, then pay a private insurer for specialist or elective procedures, they may find themselves paying more for their health care than in a standard free-market setup.

Apparently they didn't take a look at Oregon: March 13, 2019 SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon will pay off half of its Medicaid debt through new taxes on health care providers. Gov. Kate Brown on Wednesday approved a six-year tax on hospitals and insurance plans to help fund the state’s $950 million Medicaid shortfall. The move is expected to bring in over $430 million. The state has been struggling to keep up with Medicaid funding after a drop in federal contributions. The governor hopes to make up the rest of the money through a tax on tobacco and e-cigarettes. She’s also exploring a tax on employers who don’t provide workers affordable health care coverage. You can count on hospitals and insurance plans passing these taxes on to their consumers!

The butt hurt lives on: President Candidate Party Votes Pct. E.V. Trump Donald J. Trump RepublicanRep. 1,557,286 56.5% 11 Clinton Hillary Clinton DemocratDem. 1,033,126 37.5% — Johnson Gary Johnson LibertarianLib. 133,993 4.9% — Others Others IndependentInd. 33,423 1.2% — Full Ind. Results » 2,757,828 votes, 100% reporting (5,375 of 5,375 precincts)

Something seems a little retarded here, is there a new definition of single payer?

RR, If your number was $50k, that would mean 40% of households would not pay a dime. https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/ What else should that crowd not be responsible for?

Most of us identify the same as you, a little to the left, a little to the right of center is where most of us want to live.

I'd say some people will get some really fat S.S. checks in the future.

Millions of left leaning people like yourself see it the same way.

Wrong! Euro Zone tax rates hit everyone, even the burger flipper. Payroll taxes WILL be part of the equation so don't lie to people about how it's going to be paid for. Last time I checked, low income people also pay payroll taxes.

^^^^ Like I said, a special kind of retardation! Only a moron would suggest that just because you pay in another way, the cost disappears.

^^^^ Telling, and probably has some sort of mental problem.

It takes a special kind of retardation to line up for Euro Zone tax rates on the middle class. You think it is hard to survive on your middle class income now, just wait.

I take it the answer is NO.