Majority of Americans Support Medicaid for All

More unsubstantiated statements,
No one claimed it was free. Everyone knows it’s payed with taxes. That’s not free.

Secondly, quote from the Heath Act of the Canadian system p. It provides full coverage for basic healthcare needs and emergency room including emergency dental . You privately insure for prescription drugs, dental, eye ware and some provinces cover partly or all if that.

 

https://www.visaplace.com/blog-immi...-to-and-working-in-canada-to-earn-more-money/

Just to show that the Canadian system is more efficient, doctors are NOT flocking South to America. It’s just the opposite. They are going for better pay and freedom in treatment.p, especially preventative care.

 

Medicare can do the same.

https://www.aicpastore.com/Content/...ers/Articles_2014/CPA/JUN/Medicarewontpay.jsp

 

Medicare is still better. Medicaid is at the whim of the governor. Republican govs literally left thousands without insurance by refusing federal tax dollars. It can easily happen if you give over full control to Medicaid. This is what conservatives want.....

 

Your post sounds like the vast majority of conservative posts, where everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--is evaluated for its worth based solely on money. Like any world view based on one solitary criteria, so much of the variety & beauty & joy of life is missed. Old Republicans who have made the transition to the new Trump Party are so very much like Trump, who values only three things: himself, money, & power. But Trump is a perfect example of someone who has it all, yet lives a life filled with turmoil & misery. Perhaps that's because he's spiritually dead inside. Things some of us value most, like love, compassion, patience, understanding, friendship, concern & caring are foreign concepts to Trump & many of his supporters. I would feel sad for them except they are so determined to spread their misery around to everyone else around them. I join the resistance because what they offer is NOT what I want for myself OR my country.

 

My position on the matter now try addressing what I said instead of trolling.

 

They refused to commit their state treasuries to fund it when the federal subsidies ran out.

 

That's not a measure of efficiency or efficacy.

 

Fully cited.

 

I DON'T think the massive price increase with Obamacare is a good thing, but I also know that when Obamacare was initially passed, Obama planned changes in the law to be passed before two years were over that would have fixed portions of the bill & avoided the price increases. But Congress changed hands in the 2010 midterm, and none of the Republicans would support making those needed changes. Their focus became killing the ACA completely, so it became the wounded program we see before us now, with no Republican willing to save it. So rather than work together with Democrats to create an improved health care system for Americans, Republicans decided to simply find fault, become obstructionists, and leave the general public to the whims of insurance companies. This is particularly sad because the Affordable Care Act was originally a Republican plan, but when Obama submitted it to Congress in an attempt to elicit Republican support for a plan they devised, Republicans decided it was more important to oppose the first black President than it was to work for expanding healthcare to more Americans. As an American and a voter, I'd very much like to see a return to civility and across the aisle cooperation between parties again. We do have enough common ground to work together on. We need leaders who recognize that and are willing to help make it happen.

 

I've personally had health insurance thru my work that refused to treat my own medical needs. So I know personally how that feels. I don't care whether one's healthcare is calle Medicare, Medicaid, Prudential, Farmers, AARP, or what, our Congress should pass a law making it mandatory for insurance companies to leave the decision of treatment to the doctor & patient--always. All insurance companies should be required to cover pre-existing conditions, or lose their license to sell insurance. Period.

 

Well, unless you are independently wealthy, there is no system that is going to allow all medical procedures to be carried out. If somehow people think that Medicare will be "oh so much more kind" than the "evil" insurance companies, they are mistaken. It won't.

Pre-existing conditions, pretty much all agree, should be covered by insurance companies. The problem is that a blanket allowance of this would cause any intelligent gamblers to just wait until they have a medical problem to buy insurance. Before I married, I had almost no need for insurance. It was a big waste of money for me. I would have been better off if I could have just waited to get insurance until my wife was pregnant or I got sick, and then buy into it. However, that would have been the worst thing to do for the other people that had insurance with the same group plan I did. It was much better for them to require me to have insurance the whole time, not just wait until I needed it. That's the reason we have restricted coverage for pre-existing conditions, so that people don't just wait to buy health insurance when they are sick, but so they buy it as insurance against the costs of future disease.

I don't think medicare for all is at all the answer. Germany, for example, has great healthcare, and it's done through private companies (albeit with taxpayer monetary support, and a required buy-in by all workers/employers).

 

Wrong again.......
The money that Republican gov. Refused went to other states or back the system .

It’s a dual fund program from the feds and the states. The money is budgeted for this beginning each fiscal year at the federal level. It does not “ run out”. If the states refuse the expansion, they don’t have to pay their own share but the fed money goes back into the pot to be redistributed to other states and lower their shares. This is why MEDICAID for all won’t work. States that run in the red, will refuse the funds and leave thousands without endurance.

Read this .

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-...w-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-implications/

 

Not really. A cite is a claim. If you don’t provide the site you are citing, if means nothing. Your claims are unsubstantiated and faceless without a valid reference from a site. A cite us not a valid reference without access. You use opinions From a blog SITE. That’s why I called you out on your tripe. None is substantiated. The entire premises in using Medicaid for “ single payer” is from one opinion blog from a conservative non accredited institution.

 

It certainly is. It means more money is going into the system to pay the PROVIDERS and not to insurance companies .

 

Your post describes PRECISELY why Obama required everyone to buy insurance or pay a penalty fee. Like Germany, having full participation is necessary to attain the cheaper prices. Personally, I don't care whether it's thru government directly or private insurance companies, as long as its universal, affordable for everyone, & covers all pre-conditions without raising individual prices. The other nice thing about a national system is that you wouldn't lose coverage for your family when you change employment or become unemployed. I don't understand conservative opposition to these very positive aspects.

 

Well no it's not and no it doesn't.

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary


https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...icares-low-administrative-costs/#2aad6e95140d

 

Well now that you know what is a cite, I gave you one.

 

Yes it's a dual program and Obamacare tried to get them to increase their enrollment and the Feds would pay for some of that for three years. Some states got suckered in on it, more pragmatic ones who were not going to raise taxes on their citizens so Obama could say he didn't told him to take a hike.

 

So,,,,,,,,why do we pay less for longer life spans and lower infant mortality?

 

Do you think we could learn something from Germany on this?

 

Such things are not a measure of the efficacy of the health care cost or the health care system.


Infant Mortality: A Deceptive Statistic

Yet it’s not that simple. Infant and neonatal mortality rates are complex, multifactorial end-points that oversimplify heterogeneous inputs, many of which have no relation to health care at all. Moreover, these statistics gleaned from the widely varied countries of the world are plagued by inconsistencies, problematic definitions, and gross inaccuracies, all of which disadvantage the ranking of the U.S., where accuracy is paramount. Even though Oestergaard’s WHO report lists several “challenges and limitations” in comparing neonatal mortality rates, sensationalized headlines continue to rage about the supposedly poor showing of the United States. The following are a few of the difficulties:

Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States.

Gross differences in the fundamental definition of “live birth” invalidate comparisons of early neonatal death rates.

An additional major reason for the high infant-mortality rate of the United States is its high percentage of preterm births, relative to the other developed countries.

Throughout the developed world, and regardless of the health-care system, infant-mortality rates are far worse among minority populations, and the U.S. has much more diversity of race and ethnicity than any other developed nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/

The fact is we try to save babies born much earlier than other countries, they don't even count them as a live birth to begin with, would even consider to try, they don't have the capabilities as we do, And while we are the best in the world at bringing those babies through the fact remains there is a high mortality rate the earlier the birth.

 

Rather then guess, why don’t you just read it.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/affordable-care-act-expansion.aspx

It’s amazing how you recommended Medicaid for universal healthcare p, then dump all over it when the name Obama’s is attached. Of course it costs states lots of money paying for profits and forcing them to cover preexisting conditions. Did you think it was free ?

One thing Obama did was, put pressure on hypocritical conservatives who once supported private insurance not covering preexisting conditions or adding cost, to now support it come election time.

The more gop hypocrites dump on Medicaid the more everyone supports Medicare for all.

And you supported Medicaid for all...that’s funny.

 

That does not explain why infant mortality has been rising in some us states

https://www.theatlas.com/charts/SkjDBqyUG

 

Btw, there are no LEGITIMATE POLLS that had a majority of Americans preferring Medicaid.
They always prefer MEDICARE
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/mos...edicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

A summary of eight polls.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Americans_Support