Do Democrats Know How Radical Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare For All' Plan Is?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonteRCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nancy Pelosi stated that they would have to pass the ACA to see what was in it. I think that all bills should contain a clause which mandates the imprisonment of the House and Senate. They would then be forced to actually read the bills before voting on them.

As to Mr. Sanders, the (D) party has lurched so far left that it is driving its core members away. You cannot have a party with widespread support if it consists solely of the fringe.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Sanders is a socialist who would put our entire nation under a dictatorship wherein all means of production and distribution would be run by the government. Under Sanders, the Constitution would be scrapped. Our medical system worked quite well under an almost free enterprise system for over 200 years. Even indigents could get treatment for free before medicaid and medicare. Yes, the more affluent could afford good medical care easier than the less affluent. The also can afford better houses, better cars, better food, and better educations for their children. How about an affordable automobile system? Everyone gets a Rolls Royce that is subsidized by the government. There is a reason why affluent Canadians come to the US for medical treatment and procedures. Viva la revolucion.
Click to expand...
Can you quote where Sanders said he would create a dictatorship?
 
Why she said what she said is rather curious. The Senate passed the bill on Christmas Eve and was there for everyone to read. It wasn’t until March that the House took it upon themselves to put the bill UNCHANGED for a vote. That was almost three months.
 
Blame the Evangelical and Religious Right. I listened to the religious right for almost 10 years harp on Bush, McCain and Romney.

Ted Cruz was primed and ready to go, and instead people voted Trump.
 
It won’t work well because MediCare is already inefficient as pretty much anything and everything business-related by government is.

That’s why some providers no longer accept it-----they’re never sure when or even IF they will get paid.

Look at the fundamentals. Medicare for all will not work.
 
Namely, that the failed utopian dream of the NHS must go on and Baby Gard was just collateral damage so some folks can just virtue-signal that they…“care”.
 
SuperLuigi said:
It won’t work well because MediCare is already inefficient as pretty much anything and everything business-related by government is.

That’s why some providers no longer accept it-----they’re never sure when or even IF they will get paid.

Look at the fundamentals. Medicare for all will not work.
Click to expand...
Not only is medicare inefficient, it is a huge income redistribution program. If we expanded it to everyone, there would be nobody left to tax to pay for it.
 
Make ObamaCare and MediCare as optional; let people shop for their own medical insurance across state lines and with their own coverage limits.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Make ObamaCare and MediCare as optional; let people shop for their own medical insurance across state lines and with their own coverage limits.
Click to expand...
Where is either in the constitution? There is no justification for either program.
 
If an American gets shot and they don’t have insurance, will they receive the same medical care as an American who does have insurance?
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
If an American gets shot and they don’t have insurance, will they receive the same medical care as an American who does have insurance?
Click to expand...
For the initial hospital visit they will probably receive the same care. For the follow up visit, the person with insurance will probably get better care. For example, no pharmacy is required to fill prescriptions if you cannot pay.
 
Last edited:
Will medicare for all change this?
stinkcat_14 said:
For the initial hospital visit they will probably receive the same care. For the follow up visit, the person with insurance will probably get better care. For example, no pharmacy is required to fill prescriptions if you cannot pay.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Will medicare for all change this?
Click to expand...
It depends on what medicare for all covers. Medicare right now consists of a number of programs. Medicare part A is the hospitalization component, that is currently covered by the medicare payroll tax. Put then there is part B, which covers things like physician visits and such. About 75% of the cost of this program is paid for out of general tax revenues. However, prescription drugs are not covered. In the 2000s George W Bush added another entitlement, part D, which does cover prescription drugs. But he never included a way to pay for it.
 
Medicare Part D seems to be the only part of Medicare that actually works well and hasn’t resulted in exploding costs. Commentators on both the left and right cite is as the model for how an entitlement should work. When Forbes, HuffPo, and Town Hall all agree on something, it’s doing something right.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougsc...successful-entitlement-programs/#a09deb1657da

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-b-blancato/why-medicare-part-d-worke_b_4268352.html

https://townhall.com/columnists/ste...d-end-the-success-of-medicare-part-d-n2368402
 
Last edited:
ucfengr said:
Medicare Part D seems to be the only part of Medicare that actually works well and hasn’t resulted in exploding costs. Commentators on both the left and right cite is as the model for how an entitlement should work. When Forbes, HuffPo, and Town Hall all agree on something, it’s doing something right.

Medicare Part D Serves As A Measuring Stick For Successful Entitlement Programs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-b-blancato/why-medicare-part-d-worke_b_4268352.html

Price Controls on Drugs Would End the Success of Medicare Part D by Steve Sherman
Click to expand...
Medicare part D costs the federal government over $78 billion per year. It is hard to argue a program is a success when it costs billions of dollars that the government doesn’t have.
 
While this may be a trend, this is not a movement towards saving money, but paying for more convenience.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
While this may be a trend, this is not a movement towards saving money, but paying for more convenience.
Click to expand...
Many primary docs are switching to this model because they are simply burned out dealing with insurance companies, the government, and medical bureaucracies. They prefer to interact with patients and this allows them to do that. They also provide cheaper pricing and better care to the patients.
 
Last edited:
stinkcat_14 said:
Not only is medicare inefficient, it is a huge income redistribution program. If we expanded it to everyone, there would be nobody left to tax to pay for it.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. We’ve “expanded” the cost and benefit of interstates and cruise missiles to “everyone”… So, like, they should fail somehow? per you?

How does a collectivized system infer collapse when so SO many of the institutions you depend on are the result of collectivization?

For example, a mile of utility line is about $400k. In a town, a mile of service may cover 100 households. Out in the county, maybe 10?
You think the electric bills of 10 rural people will ever cover the construction and maintenance of the lines to serve them? Of course not. You rural folks have electricity due to yet another form of collectivization that you’re unaware of…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top