The Post-ObamaCare World: Reality Check For Hypocrites?

[playwrite]

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

There is ABSOLUTELY no macro-economic reason.  There are micro-economic reasons of the rather large insurance sector being decimated and 10s of thousands of jobs lost, but hey, F-it, we don't have too many buggy wipes jobs any more and the world seems to carry on.

The only reason for no medicare-for-everyone is political.

You may not be aware; perhaps even a little out of touch?  So let me fill you in -

There is this orange anus that has been just elected to be President Pussygrabber.  And the secret, he doesn't give a shit about 98% of the people that elected him.  This will slowly dawn on people.

[pbrower2a]

(11-11-2016, 11:12 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

On a similar note, I have often asked and never gotten a valid response to the question of: "why is everyone so focused on the answer to health care being insurance?"

Because the insurance lobby controls so many politicians.

[playwrite]

Medicare?  What Medicare?

After GOP wins, Paul Ryan puts Medicare in the crosshairs

And you all thought is was someone else's Obamacare that you wanted to kill off.  Silly you.

I bet those older rural White male Trumpsters are just dying to see the premiums and the double digit rate increases of the near future.  I'm sure President Pussygrabber is going to give them big vouchers to help keep up (hmm, sounds kinda like Obamacare; yea, that's going to go over well.  )

I think the message to those older White male Trumpster centers around the word "dying" as in best option.  I can just hear the GenXer ones, "well, I'm not old, so who cares."  Xers have never been too farsighted.  

Next up, SS?

[Eric the Green]

Will Democrats have the cajones to fight back against the bully in chief? We'd better yell and scream at them so loud that they don't roll over to the star who thinks he can get away with anything.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2016, 11:30 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

There is ABSOLUTELY no macro-economic reason.  There are micro-economic reasons of the rather large insurance sector being decimated and 10s of thousands of jobs lost, but hey, F-it, we don't have too many buggy wipes jobs any more and the world seems to carry on.

The only reason for no medicare-for-everyone is political.

You may not be aware;  perhaps even a little out of touch?  So let me fill you in -

There is this orange anus that has been just elected to be President Pussygrabber.  And the secret, he doesn't give a shit about 98% of the people that elected him.  This will slowly dawn on people.

I hope so. Yes, fully agree.

[Warren Dew]

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

-- it seems to it would be less expensive to expand an already existing agency than to be setting up these exchanges & whatnot from scratch. Also it's not like we don't have the $. lf we have $  to bomb ppl into oblivion  then we definitely have $ to expand medicare

[Warren Dew]

(11-11-2016, 08:03 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

-- it seems to it would be less expensive to expand an already existing agency than to be setting up these exchanges & whatnot from scratch. Also it's not like we don't have the $. lf we have $  to bomb ppl into oblivion  then we definitely have $ to expand medicare

Obamacare is cheaper because it relies on people who work to pay for their own health care, either directly or through their employers.

Medicare costs $600 billion per year.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at their peak, cost $100 billion per year.  Fixing people is more expensive than breaking them.

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 08:03 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:07 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Scuse me if this sounds lame, but what is so damn difficult about simply lowering the medicare age to 0?

It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

-- it seems to it would be less expensive to expand an already existing agency than to be setting up these exchanges & whatnot from scratch. Also it's not like we don't have the $. lf we have $  to bomb ppl into oblivion  then we definitely have $ to expand medicare

Obamacare is cheaper because it relies on people who work to pay for their own health care, either directly or through their employers.

Medicare costs $600 billion per year.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at their peak, cost $100 billion per year.  Fixing people is more expensive than breaking them.

-- perhaps   but it's still a waste of $100 billion per yr

[pbrower2a]

(11-11-2016, 12:09 PM)playwrite Wrote: Medicare?  What Medicare?

After GOP wins, Paul Ryan puts Medicare in the crosshairs

And you all thought is was someone else's Obamacare that you wanted to kill off.  Silly you.

I bet those older rural White male Trumpsters are just dying to see the premiums and the double digit rate increases of the near future.  I'm sure President Pussygrabber is going to give them big vouchers to help keep up (hmm, sounds kinda like Obamacare; yea, that's going to go over well.  )

I think the message to those older White male Trumpster centers around the word "dying" as in best option.  I can just hear the GenXer ones, "well, I'm not old, so who cares."  Xers have never been too farsighted.  

Next up, SS?

After this stuff, maybe the best thing possible for America is to splinter as Yugoslavia did.

Putting an end to medicare will cause a rash of suicides because people will find medical care so expensive that it will ruin their families.

What is pro-life about the Republican Party? Nothing.

We are entering a dark age in American politics, one in which millions will suffer, and at least hundreds of thousands will die, for the indulgence of people who have no souls.

I am not proud to be an American. I now prefer to identify with the English and German parts of my heritage. English for literature and German for music.

[Warren Dew]

Privatizing Medicare is not the same thing as putting an end to it.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Privatizing Medicare is not the same thing as putting an end to it.

Of course it is. Medicare is single payer government-run health insurance for older people. Privatizing it is the health insurance business. That's what we had before Medicare. Some diminution of it as Ryan wants is just the first step in killing it, which will happen under his plans. As I read the reports, according to Ryan the program is to end for everyone in 2022.

The reason for Medicare in 1966 and Obamacare in 2009 was because leaving health care to the insurance companies gives too much power and money to the middle man, and health care costs were driving companies out of business and people into bankruptcy, as well as leaving many people uncovered. Single payer gets rid of the middle man and gives more bargaining power to the people in the program. Business wanted Obamacare so they could save money on their employee health insurance. Now they oppose it and want to give it back to the insurance companies. The failure of it is caused because it was not a government-run public program, but just some sets of rules for the health insurance companies to follow, and a mandate for everyone to contribute to health care whether the insurance companies provided it at reasonable cost or not.

The easiest solution is just to extend medicare to everyone. We pay for it in payroll taxes now if we work, and the medicare taxes are very low. If we expand it to cover everyone, the medicare taxes will go up, but not that much, since the younger people covered will be healthier. It works very well, although the taxes probably need to go up anyway since it's running out of money. Of course that won't happen anytime soon now. The same is true of social security. The solution is to raise the cap on income that is taxed for social security, and perhaps (maybe) tax earnings on dividends and interest too. But that won't happen anytime soon now.

It seems to me the difficulty with it is political. It goes straight against the Reagan ideology of less government and "anti-socialism," which has had a 40-year reign now in our country. It's too bad, but it won't change until at least the 2020s, IF the millennials grow a spine.

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: -- it seems to it would be less expensive to expand an already existing agency than to be setting up these exchanges & whatnot from scratch. Also it's not like we don't have the $. lf we have $  to bomb ppl into oblivion  then we definitely have $ to expand medicare

Obamacare is cheaper because it relies on people who work to pay for their own health care, either directly or through their employers.

Medicare costs $600 billion per year.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at their peak, cost $100 billion per year.  Fixing people is more expensive than breaking them.

I think medical care would be cheaper if we:

1  Eliminate the middlemen.  There's no need for health care insurance company bezzle. There's a wad of money there which could be redeployed to Medicare at age 0.
2. Fold VA/Medicaid/CHIP into Medicare.  - Remove the administrative overhead for those 3 programs.
3. Bid out everything.  This includes prescription drugs. I see no reason why companies in India/Canada can't supply some drugs.  This is competition that Republicans want so much.
4. Pay for it with a VAT tax. This is back door tariffs that the WTO and other trade agreements don't bitch about. Since most of our trading partners had the VAT, why can't we?
5. Of course end all wars of choice + War on Drugs.  That saves even more money.

The health care mess is more of a problem of political will than funding.  The US just needs to make up its mind that goring a bunch of sacred cows/ breaking lots of eggs to make omelets is a Good Thing.™

Warren Dew Wrote:It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

I don't think so if we did what I propose.  The providers would get the money that's now going to those useless griftering , health insurance companies.  I couldn't care less if they all went the way of the dodo.

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: -- it seems to it would be less expensive to expand an already existing agency than to be setting up these exchanges & whatnot from scratch. Also it's not like we don't have the $. lf we have $  to bomb ppl into oblivion  then we definitely have $ to expand medicare

Obamacare is cheaper because it relies on people who work to pay for their own health care, either directly or through their employers.

Medicare costs $600 billion per year.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at their peak, cost $100 billion per year.  Fixing people is more expensive than breaking them.

I think medical care would be cheaper if we:

1  Eliminate the middlemen.  There's no need for health care insurance company bezzle. There's a wad of money there which could be redeployed to Medicare at age 0.
2. Fold VA/Medicaid/CHIP into Medicare.  - Remove the administrative overhead for those 3 programs.
3. Bid out everything.  This includes prescription drugs. I see no reason why companies in India/Canada can't supply some drugs.  This is competition that Republicans want so much.
4. Pay for it with a VAT tax. This is back door tariffs that the WTO and other trade agreements don't bitch about. Since most of our trading partners had the VAT, why can't we?
5. Of course end all wars of choice + War on Drugs.  That saves even more money.

The health care mess is more of a problem of political will than funding.  The US just needs to make up its mind that goring a bunch of sacred cows/ breaking lots of eggs to make omelets is a Good Thing.™

Warren Dew Wrote:It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

I don't think so if we did what I propose.  The providers would get the money that's now going to those useless griftering , health insurance companies.  I couldn't care less if they all went the way of the dodo.

-- Congress should legalize weed & tax it. Just think of all the revenue the country's #1 cash crop will bring in. The $ can be used to fund an expanded medicare

[Anthony '58]

Quote:-- Congress should legalize weed & tax it. Just think of all the revenue the country's #1 cash crop will bring in. The $ can be used to fund an expanded medicare

I have been saying this for years and years, with one difference: The marijuana tax money should be used to reimburse hospitals, clinics etc. for the charity care they give to the poor - and to create and maintain community health centers, thus getting the uninsured out of the emergency rooms.

[Marypoza]

(11-12-2016, 07:46 AM)Anthony Wrote:

Quote:-- Congress should legalize weed & tax it. Just think of all the revenue the country's #1 cash crop will bring in. The $ can be used to fund an expanded medicare

I have been saying this for years and years, with one difference: The marijuana tax money should be used to reimburse hospitals, clinics etc. for the charity care they give to the poor - and to create and maintain community health centers, thus getting the uninsured out of the emergency rooms.

-- why couldn't the tax do both? A moderate tax would still generate buku revenue

[Anthony '58]

"Medicare For All" is single-payer - the dreaded "socialized medicine" that too many Americans, especially older, high-voter-turnout Americans, have been indoctrinated since birth to fear and loathe.  It would never pass in either of our lifetimes (you're a Millennial, I presume?).

It is vital to give this at least the appearance of being "charity," however skillfully disguised, to assure passage.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN has an Obamacare & Trump article up, Trump appears open to compromise on Obamacare. Apparently Obama and Trump sat down together and started working towards an alternative they could agree on. They seem to be heading in a direction different from what is being talked about here. I don't know that it will be perfect, or that the version that might pass will be similar to the initial leak to test the waters version. Still, it would seem to be required reading for those contributing to this thread.

The tone of this and a few hints from elsewhere suggest that Trump the liar is shifting again. He said what he had to say to get elected, but will now do as he pleases. This can be a good thing if one of his priorities really is to fix a dysfunctional Washington.

Early days yet. Too soon to get too optimistic or too negative.

[Anthony '58]

Face it.  On health care, and many other issues, federal government action has become impossible, and will remain impossible for literally decades.

So now it's time to talk about concentric lines of defense - the first line, obviously, being the state governments; but here the prospects are almost as dismal as on the federal level, in that Democrats hold both the governorship and both houses of the legislature in only six states (although if anyone other than Martha Coakley runs against Charlie Baker for governor of Massachusetts in 2018, that state is absolutely certain to become number seven).

The next line of defense is the counties and municipalities.  But their scope is rather limited to say the least.

Finally, there are private and religious philanthropies - and here, progressives do have one weapon: To play the "hypocrisy card" - at both the left (George Soros, Tom Steyer, etc.) and the right (the churches in general, and the evangelical churches in particular; the Catholic Church can pretty much be trusted to do the right thing).

Like it or not, this is the new reality - and will very likely remain the reality until at least the next Awakening.

"It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" has never been truer.

[radind]

(11-12-2016, 07:14 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: -- it seems to it would be less expensive to expand an already existing agency than to be setting up these exchanges & whatnot from scratch. Also it's not like we don't have the $. lf we have $  to bomb ppl into oblivion  then we definitely have $ to expand medicare

Obamacare is cheaper because it relies on people who work to pay for their own health care, either directly or through their employers.

Medicare costs $600 billion per year.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at their peak, cost $100 billion per year.  Fixing people is more expensive than breaking them.

I think medical care would be cheaper if we:

1  Eliminate the middlemen.  There's no need for health care insurance company bezzle. There's a wad of money there which could be redeployed to Medicare at age 0.
2. Fold VA/Medicaid/CHIP into Medicare.  - Remove the administrative overhead for those 3 programs.
3. Bid out everything.  This includes prescription drugs. I see no reason why companies in India/Canada can't supply some drugs.  This is competition that Republicans want so much.
4. Pay for it with a VAT tax. This is back door tariffs that the WTO and other trade agreements don't bitch about. Since most of our trading partners had the VAT, why can't we?
5. Of course end all wars of choice + War on Drugs.  That saves even more money.

The health care mess is more of a problem of political will than funding.  The US just needs to make up its mind that goring a bunch of sacred cows/ breaking lots of eggs to make omelets is a Good Thing.™

Warren Dew Wrote:It would be too expensive - like Obamacare, it would add subsidies to the cost of those who actually work and earn money - and medicare covers only marginal costs, not average costs, so without further increases in rates, the medical providers would go bankrupt.

I don't think so if we did what I propose.  The providers would get the money that's now going to those useless griftering , health insurance companies.  I couldn't care less if they all went the way of the dodo.

-- Congress should legalize weed & tax it. Just think of all the revenue the country's #1 cash crop will bring in. The $ can be used to fund an expanded medicare

I favor legalization and taxation of all drugs. Start with marijuana as an experiment.