Why Do Trump Supporters Not Want Medicare For All?

I'm worried about everyone having comprehensive and accessible health care. You don't have to be "poor" to be financially broken by a serious illness. You don't have to be "poor" to not be able to afford decent insurance or insurance at all.

 

I think people with less money to spend on healthcare should use existing cost share mechanisms. Or create ones more in line with their lifestyle. I’m not big on going to government to solve problems that aren’t that complicated to begin with.

 

You're welcome to donate as much EBT as you'd like.

 

WHOA! Hold on! Medicare costs waaaay more than what the individual pays. Don't forget that there's 3 1/2 peeps paying 2.5% of their average $50k / yr income ($1500) towards that 1 Medicare recipients costs. That's an additional $5250 / yr PLUS the medicare recipient's out-of-pocket costs. PLUS medicare is, or will be shortly, running a deficit. PLUs it's obvious it will be means tested meaning that the low incomers will be subsidized for their out-of-pocket costs.

Who is going to make up that $5250-ish / year if "everyone" (in quotes cuz the elite pols will exempt themselves from a system that will end upp rationing care) of us little people are on "Medicare for all?"

 

Which existing cost sharing mechanisms are you talking about? Are you talking about the insurance industry in its current state?

 

Let's not forget the 20% that you have to pay for care plus drug costs

 

Correct! PLUS ALL out-of-pocket by the recipient which iincludes the monthly premium.

Mecicare covers about 44 million retirees. The medicare budget is $639 billion, or just over $14k / yr per reipient PLUS the recipients out-of-pocket.

For comparison, the VA spends over $26k / per yr per veteran served. "Medicrae for all" expenditures will look much the same in very short order, and in general, VA care sux.

You don't have to have a degree from Warton to understand that "Medicare for all" is untenable.

 

which if you are poor, you do not have to pay and cannot pay. Maybe that will affect your "social score" if you are being monitored by Google/Apple/Facebook Global Technocracy, and maybe your credit score will go down, but if you are a poor person, those things are irrelevant anyway.

 

Nah. Insurance sucks. I’m talking about voluntary medical cost sharing. It’s looked down upon because it’s based on personal responsibility to keep costs down. But programs could be created to pool people who prefer treatment to any active prevention.

The rejection of these working programs gives the game away. Single payer is supported mostly by those who prefer abdication of personal responsibility.

Government healthcare is marketed as the wealthy helping the less fortunate and the lucky helping the unlucky. In reality it’s the responsible helping the irresponsible. That’s why it has to be mandated.

 

The dimwit leechers think the rich are gonna cover their portion

 

Show me one place that the government runs something well without wasting money or actually saving money, then we can talk. Government by its very nature is wrought with waste and corruption.

 

Make him pay. Currently I can go to my doctor a get a checkup, once a year. If I want one more often, the insurance would not pay, so I would have to.

 

I do not pay a premium or deductible now. Many Americans do not.

 

The Post Office. The mass transit system in these parts runs well. We also have some pretty nice parks. The streets tend to be well maintained. The state gave me a scholarship to a state run school where I received a top notch education. NOAA tends to be highly reliable, NASA highly respected.

 

OK, since you asked...:

1. Because there isn't enough money. Not saying "because it costs too much" or "we can't afford it." There isn't enough, even if they took ALL of rich people and corporations' money and taxed the poor and middle class 99% of theirs.
2. Because the "care" would be shitty. You can't tell professionals how much they are allowed to make, tax them up the ying-yang and still expect them to care about their job/the care they are providing.
3. Because the overwhelming majority of people are already on Medicare, already on Medicaid, or have private insurance, and are totally happy with their situation. So why would those want their taxes to go up?

 

Post office losses money. Amtrak losses money. Drive the interstate and tell me they are in good shape. NASA pays Russia to take our astronauts to the space station.

 

how much do we collect in taxes total, if 2 cents is added on to every dollar.. yes (including investment income)

 

But that is not what the Medicare for All plan contemplates. As Bernie says, no premiums, no co-pays, no co-insurance, no deductibles. How do you think the CBO estimated tens of trillions over ten years for it? What do you think happens to demand when the price is zero?

The CBO's first estimate of Obamacare had the government spending less money over ten years! Of course their second estimate one year later blew that to smithereens.

 

That's for sure!

There is a wide gap between the far right Republicans (who want to free insurance companies to do what they will) and the far right Dems who want a system like all other frirst world countries have.

I think congress will have a tough time with this, as moving to the left means shifting from insurance payments toward increased taxes - which is an easy target regardless of how logical or beneficial.

And, continuing our horrible record of delivering healthcare to those who don't currently have significant income is something that will hurt Dems with their constituencies.

That's why I've been thinking about Klobachar's direction of creating a public option - which got cut from Obamacare for purely political reasons. If that's successful, it may be able to be increased.

 

I think that demand will stay relatively flat per capita. I think that the only increase will come from those who currently don't go to the doctor regularly because they can't afford it … which is kind of the point. Think about it. I have pretty good insurance and it's not like I make extra visits to the doctor or dentist just because I can. It's not like health care visits are an enjoyable leisure time activity.

 

Good point.

Plus, payroll tax is a fixed rate tax (regressive) that is also capped so that those with high income get a significant tax break - even those earning minimum wage pay the full rate.

If more people are benefitting from Medicare (by extending the number Medicare covers) there is every reason to fix what is already a ludicrous method of taxation.

 

I have made the following suggestion in the past. Want to cover everybody?

Medicare for seniors,
Medicaid for the unemployed and unemployable,
Private insurance for all employees. Basically, the idea is that if you are working, you're in an insurance program. If you're an employer, a medical insurance program is a part of the compensation package.

Medical insurance for 100% of the population.

This is simply a program that is already in place, expanded from some employers to all employers.

 

Requiring all employers to include healthcare in their compensation would be a HUGE deal for employers. I don't believe that is sustainable. Hiring your first employee is already significantly expensive. I think small business and new business start ups would be in trouble.

I think we should be moving away from the idea that employers should be in the healthcare business - like many are today. Maybe those making big profits have some responsibility for funding, but they shouldn't have to be designing healthcare offerings, contracting for claims management, and responding to healthcare issues from employees.

 

I understand your concern, but they would all have to do it. It would be a level playing field. Also, small businesses could form associations - could be national, regional, or statewide - that did most of the work for them. Imagine, for example, a small business association over a regional area - the Pacific Northwest, for example - representing 25,000 small businesses. It could negotiate a deal with Blue Cross or Providence or whoever to cover their employees. Same coverage, same cost for everyone.

The economy would simply have to adjust to a new paradigm.

I am married, and we raised two kids, and we had company-paid health insurance, and it worked well for us.

If we want to cover everyone, there is a cost to that, one way or another. What I like about this idea is that it doesn't simply wipe out a system we know to be replaced by a system that no one knows how it will paid for, and nobody believes they should pay for it. It is a compromise that gets 100% of our population covered but without throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

 

It is still a barrier to entry to the playing field. Look what you have to do when you hire your first employee! Plus, I'm not so sure that a company can really just refuse to be responsive to their employees concerning healthcare. Even today, most if not all corporations contract out the claims work. But, they still have to be fully involved in what their offer is and be sensitive to employee questions/demands, make changes as necessary, etc., as that's what they are using to buy employees. It's an issue of competition for employees.

Also, for many employees the cost of healthcare coverage could end up being close to the same as the employee's paycheck!

That's the problem we face in general - healthcare coverage is expensive enough that many decide they can't afford it.

The average cost of a family insurance plan is more than $1,000/month. Even in Seattle, with $16/hr ($20.8K/year for 52 full time weeks) one can see that requiring you to provide insurance for that first employee can be a serious barrier - it's a major increase in the cost of a minimum wage worker. So, where do you go? Do we allow companies to buy crap insurance for their low paid workers?