Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (Member)

Debate 10-15-2019

Politics   (7,581 Views 37 Comments)
7,597 Visitors; 423 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 2 of Debate 10-15-2019. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

5 hours ago, MoondoggieRN said:

She's proposed an expansion of medicare, which already has a funding mechanism, so it's a bit silly to suggest her proposal doesn't include any funding possibilities.

Medicare already uses payroll taxes as the source of funding, which would mean an increase in payroll tax deductions for workers but also a decrease in insurance premium deductions.  Even predictions by conservative groups show we would be spending less under a medicare for all system than a private insurance based system, I'd have about $3000 less taken out of my paycheck each year for insurance under a medicare-for-all system.  And yes, I can afford to pay $3000 less per year for insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

She's proposed an expansion of medicare, which already has a funding mechanism, so it's a bit silly to suggest her proposal doesn't include any funding possibilities.

Medicare already uses payroll taxes as the source of funding, which would mean an increase in payroll tax deductions for workers but also a decrease in insurance premium deductions.  Even predictions by conservative groups show we would be spending less under a medicare for all system than a private insurance based system, I'd have about $3000 less taken out of my paycheck each year for insurance under a medicare-for-all system.  And yes, I can afford to pay $3000 less per year for insurance.

Yes, her source of funding will have to be raiseing taxes on the middle class.  And it still won't be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 7:52 PM, nursej22 said:

Perhaps Senator Warren has read the Constitution, and understands that only Congress has the power to pass taxes. See Article I, Section 8. Clause 1. 

Do you fully understand Article 1, Section 8? There are two parts of Congress the Senate and the House of Representatives. Even if the House of Representatives passes the law it still must go to the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MunoRN said:

She's proposed an expansion of medicare, which already has a funding mechanism, so it's a bit silly to suggest her proposal doesn't include any funding possibilities.

Medicare already uses payroll taxes as the source of funding, which would mean an increase in payroll tax deductions for workers but also a decrease in insurance premium deductions.  Even predictions by conservative groups show we would be spending less under a medicare for all system than a private insurance based system, I'd have about $3000 less taken out of my paycheck each year for insurance under a medicare-for-all system.  And yes, I can afford to pay $3000 less per year for insurance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MunoRN said:

She's proposed an expansion of medicare, which already has a funding mechanism, so it's a bit silly to suggest her proposal doesn't include any funding possibilities.

Medicare already uses payroll taxes as the source of funding, which would mean an increase in payroll tax deductions for workers but also a decrease in insurance premium deductions.  Even predictions by conservative groups show we would be spending less under a medicare for all system than a private insurance based system, I'd have about $3000 less taken out of my paycheck each year for insurance under a medicare-for-all system.  And yes, I can afford to pay $3000 less per year for insurance.

https://www.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheright/monacharen/s-2286237

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, luv2 said:

Do you fully understand Article 1, Section 8? There are two parts of Congress the Senate and the House of Representatives. Even if the House of Representatives passes the law it still must go to the Senate.

Thank you for the civics lesson, Captain Obvious. 

 

Edited by nursej22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

She's welcome to her opinion.  It's value is unclear, but she's welcome to it. If she's truly concerned about honesty she should focus on the conservative party and their Liar in Chief, IMHO.

Sen Warren's plan is not sustainable. It will place America's economy into a recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physicians group endorses the Medicare for All Act of 2019

Doctors say Rep. Jayapal’s single-payer House bill is the only way to achieve universal, comprehensive coverage while saving the nation billions in health costs  

“Accept no substitutes — only single-payer, Medicare for All can fix the grave dysfunctions and injustices of the American health care system,” said Dr. Adam Gaffney, PNHP’s president and a critical care physician and faculty member at Harvard Medical School. “Congress shouldn’t be distracted with incremental plans like a Medicare buy-in or public option. The only way to achieve universal and comprehensive coverage is to eliminate the profits and waste of the private insurance industry, which drains hundreds of billions of dollars from our health care system each year.”

The Medicare for All Act would improve Medicare by providing comprehensive, first-dollar health benefits inclusive of dental, vision, hearing, mental health, and long-term care, as well as the full spectrum of women’s reproductive health care. It would then expand Medicare to cover everyone living in the U.S., regardless of age, income, or employment. Coverage would be lifelong, portable, and seamless; services would be covered free at the point of service without copays or premiums, which serve only to keep patients from the care they need.

Experts predict that single-payer Medicare for All would would save more than $600 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste of private insurance and the paperwork insurers impose on hospitals and doctors ($504 billion) and bargaining down drug prices ($155 billion). These efficiencies would free up enough money for universal, first-dollar coverage without any overall increase in U.S. health spending, while controlling its growth over time.

Currently, the U.S. spends $3.65 trillion per year on health care, double the per-capita spending of other industrialized nations that provide universal coverage. Without single-payer reform, U.S. health spending is projected to reach $5.96 trillion — 19.4 percent of GDP — by 2027.

“Even single-payer opponents admit that, compared to Medicare for All, the status quo will cost U.S. $2 trillion more over the next decade,” said Dr. Claudia Fegan, a Chicago-based internal medicine physician and PNHP national coordinator. “How do they propose we pay for that?”...

https://pnhp.org/news/physicians-group-endorses-the-medicare-for-all-act-of-2019/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, luv2 said:

Sen Warren's plan is not sustainable. It will place America's economy into a recession.

In your opinion. Many many experts disagree with your opinion.  Our current profit focused system is not fiscally sustainable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×