Jump to content
WillFranklin

How To Pay For Medicare For All

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JoeAverage said:

You really have no idea why most of the states contract out Medicaid to MCO's do you.

I know why. I get to experience it every single day.... There are times our entire ED is 100% medicaid with 90+% not even qualifying for a PCP visit. 
 

People have zero respect for something someone else pays on their behalf. Just Cruze through any public housing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoeAverage said:

You really have no idea why most of the states contract out Medicaid to MCO's do you.

 

Tell us about Medicaid now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reckless spenders absolutely!!! Conservatives believe in privatization to grease the palms of their campaign money no matter that it increases tax dollar spending = corporations cannot be blindly trusted!

 

== 8 lobbyists per elected official = expensive mouthpieces

 

== Misinformation campaigns @ $1.4 million health care dollars a day

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html

 

== Healthy humans seldom spend what they pay out to the insurance industry!

 

== Consumers are charged billions in overcharges aka have you received your refund yet?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

 

== Politicians as shareholders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

 

== Health care dollars becoming political campaign dollars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when conservatives want to wade into a war campaign they don't ask how will it be paid for NOR do they know what benefit will be THEY JUST DO IT.

 

Money for medicare is in Washington DC as we speak = we call it diverting tax dollars to more effective and efficient spending models. BRINGING TAX DOLLARS HOME.

 

All of this bs of how medicare will be paid for is nothing but spin and stonewalling. this is not necessarily a liberal/democrat concept because I believe teddy Roosevelt brought this concept 

OF MEDICARE FO ALL to the forefront. Then again Teddy Roosevelt was republican not some off the wall ALEC fascist pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

Pro-Life-Coverage.jpg

 

Medicare for All  =  $23,000 tax increase from each and all tax payers.   Per year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 11:33 AM, splunch said:

We could drive costs down bigly if we created a competitive environment. We can do that with universal healthcare, essentially acting as a union demanding lower costs from drug companies and providers.  Or we could do it by cleaning up the existing market.  Get rid of the 80/20 rule, or anything like it.  And get rid of the anti-trust exemption.  Then aggressively prosecute anti-trust activities, including breaking up monopolies that can warp the market by their sheer size and power regionally.  Break up the insurance companies, break up the drug companies, do anything you can to foster competition that will reward efficiency, good outcomes at reduced costs.  Tort reform is absolutely essential, too, and part of the universal healthcare plan.  Doctors' liabilities must be factored into the system.   Then the doctors will be freed up from having to join huge conglomerates that are the only ones who can afford to do business in this crony capitalist system. They will be more able to return to private practices in small groups, further increasing competition and rewarding efficiency and good outcomes.

 

We need universal healthcare because nothing else is really humane.  But we should use every tool at our disposal-- including market forces --to drive that system and make it work for us.

Reducing costs can make universal healthcare affordable. We can start by using existing buildings that are sound structures

 Using many empty buildings that are up to code would reduce a need for new clinics or hospitals. Many volunteers would bring down costs. Preventative health practices such as MRIs and CT scans will prevent more expensive problems in the future. Of course, creating low cost drugs would save millions of dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Taipan said:

 

Medicare for All  =  $23,000 tax increase from each and all tax payers.   Per year.

 

 

it is not uniformly distributed, and we are going to tax the 8 trillion in annual corporate profits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 10:22 AM, WillFranklin said:

Means-tested co-pays, marijuana taxation, and progressive payroll and corporate taxes will completely fund Medicare For All, leaving the middle class and union workers as the biggest winners as they finally gain complete, permanent coverage that they at last cannot lose for any reason, not even a strike. Their hard work will have paid off for good for a change when nothing can take away their complete coverage.

 

Medicare-All.jpg

 

UNIONS? UNIONS have GUARANTEED BENEFITS! UNIONS WANT A CARVE OUT! UNIONS WILL BE EXEMPT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SBED said:

UNIONS? UNIONS have GUARANTEED BENEFITS! UNIONS WANT A CARVE OUT! UNIONS WILL BE EXEMPT!

 

Union members currently can lose their coverage, whether it be a strike, or other job loss or reason.

 

Medicare For All is complete lifetime coverage that they cannot lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

Union members currently can lose their coverage, whether it be a strike, or other job loss or reason.

 

Medicare For All is complete lifetime coverage that they cannot lose.

union members fought for their insurance GUARANTEE DO YOU THINK THEY WILL STAND FOR IT TO BE TAKEN AWAY? HELLO NO THEY WILL GET A CARVE OUT JUST LIKE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS! THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL GET THE BEST AND FASTEST CARE AND YOU WILL BE STUCK WITH SCRAPS!

 

THE TRUTH HURTS!

snap!

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-new-special-carve-out-for-unions-undermines-the-case-for-his-socialized-healthcare-plan

 

Bernie Sanders' new, special carve out for unions undermines the case for his socialized healthcare plan

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' proposal to move all Americans to a single government plan has had an ongoing problem with a constituency that should be among his core supporters: organized labor.

 

The issue is that like most other Americans, union workers like their current plans and want to keep them. As healthcare costs have risen over time, unions have negotiated collective bargaining agreements in which they accepted lower salary increases in exchange for more generous health coverage. Now, the Sanders plan would require taking them away, and they are not happy about it.

Sanders appeared at a labor town hall event on Monday and drew some heat on the issue. Now, the Washington Post reports that he has made a change to his plan:

Under Sanders’s new wrinkle, those unions could renegotiate their contracts under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board. 'Unions will still be able to negotiate for and provide wrap-around services and other coverage not duplicative of the benefits established under Medicare-for-all,' the plan now says, a seeming acknowledgment of a role for private coverage by a campaign that has railed against others for not taking a hard-enough stance against such plans.

On the surface, the change does not appear to do much to alter the plan. After all, under the legislation as it existed before the change, employers were still theoretically free to offer coverage that did not offer any of the same benefits that were in the new government plan. However, the issue has always been that because Sanders promises that the government plan will cover such a wide array of benefits (listed here), in reality it effectively outlaws private coverage. Sanders often likes to say that his plan would allow for coverage of cosmetic surgery, but as Margot Sanger-Katz helpfully detailed over at the New York Times, cosmetic surgery insurance does not actually exist.

That said, the article also cites a Sanders adviser as saying that the change "is meant to guarantee that any savings to employers under the Medicare-for-all plan 'must be passed on to their organized workers in the form of additional wages or benefits.'" That suggests that as the result of the arbitration process, union workers will be treated differently than non-union workers.

That smacks of unfairness. The whole moral pitch for the Sanders plan, and for his candidacy in general, is that it's supposed to create more equality and end special interest deals. But by treating union workers differently, he'd be making exceptions for a powerful liberal constituency whose votes he needs.

There are plenty of low-income and middle-class workers who are not unionized. While union healthcare plans may be especially generous, all workers who have insurance through their employers — which includes about half the country — in some way have accepted lower salaries because businesses provide them with health benefits. Even if it wasn't the result of a formal collective bargaining process, this is the simple reality given that businesses budget in terms of overall compensation.

It should be recalled that a special carve out for union plans nearly killed Obamacare. Initially, Obamacare's Cadilac tax of expensive healthcare plans was supposed to go into effect much sooner, but with a special provision that delayed its effect for generous union plans. Opponents cited this as one of the special interest deals, and it nearly smothered the efforts to pass the bill. Eventually, Democrats were forced to delay the taxes for everybody. Sanders, if he ever gets much further in the election process, risks a similar sort of backlash.

At the end of the day, if Sanders and others are serious about transitioning everybody to a single government plan, they need to make the case that unions, like many other groups, will have to suck up the rocky transition to get to what they believe is a better place. He can make the case that once it's in place, employers will be saving money on insurance costs, so salaries will start to go up. But it is simply an untenable position to adopt a special carve out for his preferred special interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

Pro-Life-Coverage.jpg

START BY BANNING ABORTION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

Union members currently can lose their coverage, whether it be a strike, or other job loss or reason.

 

Medicare For All is complete lifetime coverage that they cannot lose.

 

5 hours ago, SBED said:

union members fought for their insurance GUARANTEE DO YOU THINK THEY WILL STAND FOR IT TO BE TAKEN AWAY?

 

It's finally being guaranteed for life with MFA, not taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare for all cannot happen because it cannot be paid for. 

Game over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

Medicare for all cannot happen because it cannot be paid for. 

Game over. 

 

Corporate profits are 8 trillion a year, 2 trillion a quarter. When I showed you this you ran away last time.

 

We remember.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WillFranklin said:

Corporate profits are 8 trillion a year, 2 trillion a quarter. When I showed you this you ran away last time.

We remember.

Poor swillie.  Has no idea what he's talking about. 

Does he really think Corporations won't leave the country if he forces them to give up 50% of their profits?

 

Liberals never learn from their mistakes. 

And they can't do math. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

Poor swillie.  Has no idea what he's talking about. 

Does he really think Corporations won't leave the country if he forces them to give up 50% of their profits?

 

Liberals never learn from their mistakes. 

And they can't do math. 

 

 

But MFA does not even totally depend on corporate profits. In fact, less than half of the financing of MFA would be corporate profits.

 

Did you already forget that?

 

Or are you obfuscating again?

 

You have a pair of obfuscates and think  this is your rink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WillFranklin said:

But MFA does not even totally depend on corporate profits. In fact, less than half of the financing of MFA would be corporate profits.

Did you already forget that?

Or are you obfuscating again?

You have a pair of obfuscates and think  this is your rink.

I asked you a question:   Do you think corporations are going to stand there as targets and allow you to take 50% of their profits?

They came back to the US because we reduced their tax risk, now you want to more than triple their taxes. 

 

It's really stunning that you can never learn from your mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

I asked you a question:   Do you think corporations are going to stand there as targets and allow you to take 50% of their profits?

They came back to the US because we reduced their tax risk, now you want to more than triple their taxes. 

 

It's really stunning that you can never learn from your mistakes.

 

I already showed you that the most we will need from the total profits of corporations to pay for MFA is only between 12.5% to 25% of their profits. 

 

You have no skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WillFranklin said:

I already showed you that the most we will need from the total profits of corporations to pay for MFA is only between 12.5% to 25% of their profits. 

You have no skills.

Swillie will not answer the question because he already knows the answer exposes his stupidity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

Swillie will not answer the question because he already knows the answer exposes his stupidity. 

 

You ask an irrelevant question to imply something that is not necessary.

 

Corporate MFA taxes will be around 20% at the most. Probably much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations make 2 Trillion a quarter after taxes they pay now, which pay for Medicaid and Medicare already.

 

So that also reduces that 20% estimate corporate tax rate figure for MFA greatly when you consider their only added tax burden is for health care and they are already paying for much of it in taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...