Google analyses of the Conyers bill and the Sanders bill (2013) for numbers.
He said he is waiting for the Republican bill(s) to either die or be passed. Google the bill he introduced in 2013 to get a preview of what his new bill will look like.
What do you mean "you are not forced to sign up"?
Are you saying I'll be able to refuse the massive tax increases if I agree to not take the government insurance?
Hmm, I didn't see that in the bill, must have missed it.
Oh, what you must mean is that I'd only be forced to pay for it, just not forced to use it.
I love the part of the bill that raises special taxes on the self employed. That will be really popular with the immigrants who have started small businesses to make a living. After all, the evil of capitalism must be strangled in the crib before it can take root.
And the part that forbids insurance companies from selling a competing product even if someone has any money left after paying all the taxes. You can't have that, someone might prefer it to the government swill.
As Mussolini famously said: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State!".
The CommonDreams mantra.
Knowledge is power. Anyone wanting to understand the single payer system and the many benefits it would have in our country should watch the you tube documentary, "FIX IT". Businesses would be saved, jobs would be saved, healthcare delivery would improve, waste would be eliminated. The only ones it would not help are insurance agencies and Pharma business. This is a discussion that we as a nation must have....just talking seriously about having a medicare coverage for all would prompt the insurance companies to lower their rates out of fear of losing their profitable free markets to a government controlled system that is working in other developed countries.
"Medicaid For All" would be far superior. This is what I advocate on my website (muskegonlibertarian.wordpress.com). The reason is simply. Medicare has limits on coverage. While Part A will pay most of your hospital bill, it does not pay all of it. Medicare also will "run out" if you are hospitalized over a certain length of time. Medicaid won't. Medicare pays 80% of your medical bill, you have to pay the rest. Doctor visits have 80% coverage, the other 20% is yours to pay. You have to pay a monthly amount for Medicare Part B (about $100 or more depending upon income) Medicare Part D requires you pay a private insurance company a monthly amount with many plans having a deductible before it pays anything. Medicare Part D also has a limit on coverage of $3700 (2017). Then you drop into the "Donut Hole" and pay something around half of the cost of your medication until your reach the catastrophic level where coverage is about 95%. So many seniors do buy extra coverage from private insurers. The most popular form is Medicare Advantage which has monthly premiums. Generally these plans have limits on which doctors you can see. Right now my wife and I pay $56.90 a month each for a plan that is low cost, but very restrictive on doctors.
So "Medicare" isn't the "solution" it is made out to be. It is better than private ACA plans, but that isn't saying much. A much better plan is "Medicaid". No deductions, no limits on length of coverage, no drug "donut holes". Of course doctors don't like it because they enjoy earning incomes double of what doctors earn anywhere else on Earth. But there is a solution for this and that is nurse practitioners. Along with a lot of deregulation of the US health care system to bring prices down to something far closer to being actually "affordable". We could likely drop our health care costs from the present $3.6 trillion down to somewhere about $2 trillion, which is comparable with what the rest of the developed world pays for health care.
No need to wait - no reason to wait ...for Improved Medicare for All, the sooner it is introduced in the Sen the better ... Just went to a Town Hall meeting in CNY with Gillibrand who said she "loved the bill (HR676)" but is "working with Sanders to put some more meat in it" - told her "it doesn't need any more meat" - Ha - HR676 has been introduced for years in the House, since '03 - so how much more and what kind of "meat" does he want to add?
That 200+ page bill that he started to have read into the record but then quit because it was "interfering with more important business"? And what about all the years in between?
His "new bill" couldn't be any better than HR 676 ...this ia a stall ...
Naw, there would be some additional funding by raising FICA taxes a bit and other sources, like how about a FTT? and in any case those overall "healthcare" costs would go down considerably meaning less need be spent/individual not to mention the less that is needed for healthcare for the younger healthier individuals thrown into the mix -
It appears you have citations for those - care to share them?
What "massive tax increases"
Ah so you are one of those who has no health insurance - that you are "forced to pay for" with premiums - and have decided that if you or yours ever get sick or injured that you will not seek healthcare that others will be "forced: to pay for if you can;t - good luck with that, hope you never get more than a cold ...
Immigrants who have started a small business - gee, now under this bill they will be able to get healthcare, too - or is that what bothers you as well ...
I don't think talking about it will prompt insurance co.s to lower their rates - what it will prompt them to do is spend more money to buy more politicians to make sure we don't get - and of course they would pass that "cost" on to the "customer" ...
Read HR 676 - your objections apply to Medicare as currently formulated, not to "Improved Medicare for All" as in HR676
Also eligibility for Medicaid is income dependent and you practically have to pauperize yourself to get it
Let me put it a different way: if Democrats fail to champion and deliver Expanded & Improved Medicare for All by the 2022 mid-terms, there's a good chance the working and middle classes will defect to a third party and won't look back. The weak, dilatory excuses we hear from the likes of Feinstein, Pelosi, and [your Democratic congresscritter's name here] just won't cut it anymore.
Young "working and middle classes" have already defected and abandoned the Democratic Party.
The ones needed to not even begin to pay for the inevitable massive costs of government healthcare. Right now our government pretends to be viable by pushing unbelievable debt onto our children and grandchildren. The last Democrat government added 10 trillion in new debt in 8 years.
Hey, no problem, right? It's the right thing to do. Somehow we'll just default on that debt at some point and somehow get it all for free.
I guess I'm referring to the ones that I know who came here to start a life of thier own, not to live in a totalitarian nanny state that takes away their money and provides them with government proscribed services whether they want them or not.
What terrifies you about some actual liberty? Are you one of those folks that cry everything will go all Mad Max if we don't greatly increase government control of the population, for it's own good of course.
Like we don't have nearly enough government now, we need a lot more or terrible things will happen.
I'm not trying to set up anarchy, I just want to make some of the important decisions in my own life. And yes, I'm willing to live with the results of my decisions.
That's called adulthood. What you're crying for is perpetual adolescence.
"Gov't" already pay's the lion's share of healthcare costs through subsidies to shore up profit margins of private insurers/providers but a lot of that is waste, the money that could be saved by eliminating that waste would go a lond way toward paying for actual healthcare ... why don't you go to the PNHP site to check out some facts instead of projecting that "private is good, gov't is bad" meme ...
As for debt - well,let's see a lot of that incurred in the past two admin was for - bailing out those so "efficient" private banks and for our wars, somehow we "found" the money to shore up crooked banks and to kill lots of folks abroad, but we can't "find" it to heal our own? eliminate those sources of "bad debt" and see where we are - and in any case most of that debt we actually owe to ourselves and could be eliminated at the stroke of a pen - as to passing it on to our children and grandchildren - that is what has been done with all our debt and can continue to be - they pass it on ad nauseum - so what, in a country with a sovereign currency that can roll over its own debt - what is the point at which it "must be paid"...
I suggest that they came here to live in a state that, theoretically does take care of its own, or is supposed to - if it is better in their home country they can return - and we can go there, too ... or perhaps they choose to come here because, "in spite of" all those gov't laws they can have a better life - maybe, just maybe it's "because of" those laws ...
Frankly i would rather have my money "taken away" by a public entity over which I have some control than even more "taken away" by private entities over which i have none - and the latter is where we are increasingly going as we "privatize" everything...
Willing to take responsibility for your own decisions - well that's just fine, so if you fall down and break a leg or your kid gets cancer, what will your decision be then ...
Btw - what do you think about the payment of school taxes by those who don't have any kids ...I think i can guess ....
You call what you want an "sdult" world - i call it a dog eat dog world where no one has any responsibility for anyone else - no thanks ....
I've lived in three countries, all with single payer systems in place for at least 40 years; and all also having a number of private health schemes (not scams) working alongside. In all my time (75 years), I've never had to pay for a private health package, yet I've had a number of sicknesses, all of which required hospital treatment, the latest an angiogram to insert a stent in the main artery of my heart (that alone has a cost of $30,000, so I was told).
Whatever the case about actual cost, I've never had to pay any doctor, any nurse, any physiotherapist, any dentist or any other professional in the health industry for anything. All prescription medicine I get is at discount pricing simply because I qualify through age.
None of the three countries have anywhere near the wealth and resources of the USA. All three have smaller health expenses, as percentage of GDP, than the USA. As far as I know, nobody has ever declared bankruptcy as a result of health expense in any of those countries.
Seeing and observing the practice in USA over many years, however, it's been a constant puzzle to me about why US citizens endured the system in place without much protest, until very recently. So, it's great to see the mounting pressure to change an evil system which has caused so much distress, anxiety, injury and even death.
Don't give up!
Further to my prior post, another thought occurred to me....
With a single payer system, it's the federal government which pays the bills but, basically, it's the states (or equivalent) which administer and manage it. Hence, in a very real sense, the government - feds and states - are ensuring all citizens are treated equally. Which means there is a better chance for all citizens to obtain the best possible health care. And that, in turn and over time, means that all working citizens have a better chance of recovering from any (non-fatal) sickness which prevents them from working....
You see where I'm going? In a single payer system, the inevitable result is a working population which is healthier overall - all other things being equal - and which is then better able to continue paying legislated federal and state taxes. How many do you know who've gone bankrupt, who've become victims in the current system (even Obamacare), who've lost/been denied insurance, who've opted out because it's too expensive, who've emigrated to other countries, and so on? Not many of those people pay much tax now, I'd guess.
And, think of this: under the present system, all citizens must still pay legal income taxes. Yet, still, only very few - those with money already - have a health care system which provides the necessities to ensure paying taxes, all the time. And, many of them are rich enough to make sure they can avoid taxes, anyway. Which leaves the less fortunate holding the (empty) bag all the time.
Single payer works because every working person pays a small amount from their wages, salary, whatever, to help pay for all. I paid for sixty plus years, never missed the money, ever. And, I've never, ever had to worry about the cost of going to see a doctor.
You can do the same or better.
Thanks for mentioning something that I haven't seen before. Sure, people not eligible for Medicare are paying into the social security system, and that helps fund Medicare for people like me. However, the younger folks are also paying for insurance for themselves, or should be, by either buying privately, including under the ACA, or paying through deductions from their wages. If the money they're spending, and/or should be spending, on insurance for themselves and their families went instead to Medicare, I'll bet that would keep the pie the same size, or bigger, since Medicare is more efficient economically than private or employer-based insurance.
That's always the fallacy of and justification for the totalitarian State.
The total belief that the majority of people are too stupid to take responsibility for their own lives.
Followed by the deep seated belief that those who somehow managed to make their way in life without an all powerful State telling them what to do are too mean and greedy to ever help anyone else without being forced to do it in the way proscribed by the all knowing, all powerful State.
I'm so sorry that your life has been such that your view of other people has been so soured.
Mine has been the opposite. Of course the mean, and greedy exist, but I've found that by and large if people have some control of their resources, they do help other people. Usually far more effectively than giant, impersonal bureaucracies.
muskegonlibertarian, I haven't had (yet) problems with Medicare "running out," and the 80% hasn't been a problem for me. Nor do I worry about Part B and Part D, or the "donut hole." But as I understand it, Medicaid is also a single-payer program. So I can go with "single payer for all" instead of "Medicare for all," although my own experience suggests expanding Medicare to cover everyone not now covered by Medicare or Medicaid would be a vast improvement over what we have now.