Go back
Universal Healthcare for the United States.

Universal Healthcare for the United States.

Debates

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
20 Aug 19

@js357 said
So I pay typically a $35 copay for each visit including when they call ME in. Some procedures have three figure copays. I just renewed an rX for $96 thank you and that’s for one of my 4 drugs. . I pay $106/month to Medicare just for kicks. Last year I had an emergency that cost ~$98,000 on paper. I paid about ~$2000. Of course I’m a retiree who made and paid a lot over the yea ...[text shortened]... s Medicare.

Meet your criteria?

I wonder how many people understand Medicare. It ain’t cheap.
I understand fully. The $35 copay isn't paying in full for your medical care. Thus someone else is paying. If we expand medicare, someone is picking up the tab.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
20 Aug 19

@wolfgang59 said
If that were true you would gleefully post an appropriate link.
Do you deny the existence of waiting lists?

shavixmir
Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
89769
Clock
20 Aug 19

@kazetnagorra said
Pros:
- cheaper
- more efficient
- more effective
- fewer people suffering from easily preventable ailments
- less of a hassle in terms of paperwork for patients

Cons:
- less opportunity to urinate on the graves of people who died from untreated cancer
- gives libertarians and misanthropes a sense of existential dread
- makes it more difficult for health care executives and marketing managers to obtain sufficient cocaine to sniff from the backside of hookers
Hahahaha!!

Classic.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
20 Aug 19

@quackquack said
If the government expands healthcare coverage then those paying into the system will undoubtable pay more. I'm certainly not interested in another system where I pay for myself and then am asked to pay even more for others.
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.

JS357

Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
Clock
20 Aug 19
Vote Up
Vote Down

@eladar said
For all those who pay into Medicare their entire adult life and die before retiring, that is Medicare too.

Better would be a personal savings account to then use to pay for insurance or pass on to their adult kids and grandchildren.
Is that how you are doing it?

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
20 Aug 19

@kazetnagorra said
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.
In a free market you blokes can get together voluntarily and show everyone the way.

JS357

Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
Clock
20 Aug 19
Vote Up
Vote Down

@quackquack said
I understand fully. The $35 copay isn't paying in full for your medical care. Thus someone else is paying. If we expand medicare, someone is picking up the tab.
If you think about health care as picking up someone else’s tab or their picking up yours, I can understand your attitude. You have the right to your attitude of course but I don’t think being a member of society is a zero-sum, if you win I lose game. We all benefit from having a functioning (if improvable) health care system in a prosperous economy that can tend to those in need of health care regardless of their economic condition. It’s a sign of success as a nation, afaiac.

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54562
Clock
20 Aug 19

@kazetnagorra said
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.
Kazet..............So does the quality of care! I mean really......................

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
20 Aug 19
Vote Up
Vote Down

@kazetnagorra said
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.
It would be nice if that were magically true but if we increase access to healthcare demand will increase and costs will go up substantially.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
20 Aug 19
Vote Up
Vote Down

@js357 said
If you think about health care as picking up someone else’s tab or their picking up yours, I can understand your attitude. You have the right to your attitude of course but I don’t think being a member of society is a zero-sum, if you win I lose game. We all benefit from having a functioning (if improvable) health care system in a prosperous economy that can tend to those in ne ...[text shortened]... d of health care regardless of their economic condition. It’s a sign of success as a nation, afaiac.
If we could do it without raising taxes on those who already pay the most I'd listen. But the truth is healthcare debates are really a pretext for income redistribution. Obamacare didn't cut costs, It merely made segments of society subsidize others.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
20 Aug 19
Vote Up
Vote Down

@quackquack said
It would be nice if that were magically true but if we increase access to healthcare demand will increase and costs will go up substantially.
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
20 Aug 19

@no1marauder said
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?
Voodoo.

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54562
Clock
20 Aug 19
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?
Quack is quite correct that this is income redistribution, plain and simple. Folks like me, and I guess Quack, do not favor income redistribution (hard working people supporting those who aren't). You apparently find that to be OK. So, you say above 'How do you explain this?"......How in the world do you 'explain' taking money from Hard Working Sylvester and giving it to Kite-Flying Leonard??? How do you explain that?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
20 Aug 19
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
Quack is quite correct that this is income redistribution, plain and simple. Folks like me, and I guess Quack, do not favor income redistribution (hard working people supporting those who aren't). You apparently find that to be OK. So, you say above 'How do you explain this?"......How in the world do you 'explain' taking money from Hard Working Sylvester and giving it to Kite-Flying Leonard??? How do you explain that?
Almost all who received the benefits under the ACA were working.

Maybe you could explain to us why they should be refused medical care when they are sick?

The ACA was mostly paid for by taxes on the businesses that benefited from it and on passive investment income.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
20 Aug 19
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?
Plans keep on increasing faster than inflation while costs such as co-pays increase. It is far from fixed. Plus the opportunity to make real fixes like limiting medical malpractice was completely wasted.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.