Should the US expand Medicaid to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level

[ProVobis]

I agree with you. Who do you think was the loudest in screaming that had I invested my and my employer’s share of SS taxes in 6% CDs ((about average over the 1965-2005 period), I would have had a terrific annuity built during that period?

BTW I used a spreadsheet to prove my point.

 

[Thorolfr]

there is no reason that local governments can’t be involved in welfare for their own residents.

The 1602 Elizabethan Poor Law assigned the responsibility for welfare to the parish of the indigent.

And we could bring back workhouses, too.

 

[Thorolfr]

The last thing I want as a freedom-loving American is for someone else to be sent to jail because they don’t want to pay for my healthcare. Is there any compassion in the least in a system that forces all to participate? It seems to me nothing less than tyranny of the majority.

And if someone doesn’t want to pay taxes, we could just let his house burn down if there’s a fire since he wouldn’t be contributing to the fire department. And he could always ride overland on a horse since he wouldn’t be paying for road repairs.

 

[kgmlg]

I live in one of the poorer countries of Europe, but we have free health coverage for everyone….yes, everyone. And while, as a taxpayer, I do not agree with giving absolutely everyone full health coverage, simply because the system is abused this way, as a Catholic, I think the system is great. Very humane. Nobody is left unattended just because you do not have money, or are simply lost, or too injured to respond.

I am no expert in state financial issues, but if other poorer countries (I believe Brasil has a similar system, correct me if I am wrong) can make the effort of providing health care to everyone, the US being the mega rich country that it is, could it not implement a similar method? Not a criticism….just a question.

PS. Maybe I should explain how the system is sometimes abused. There are some people who do not have enough health coverage in their own countries, and they come over for major operations to get them done for free. And the local health system, and taxpayers (us) end up footing the bill.

 

[boldlygo]

The quality [and quantity] of ‘free’ healthcare throughout the world has to be questioned. For decades, people who don’t want to wait, sometimes for years, for simple diagnostic tests [MRI’s, for example], have come to the U.S. and had these tests done at their own expense in days.
Here in the U.S., we have the V.A. healthcare system, which could be roughly equated to what would happen if everyone received Medicaid. As a disabled vet, I waited for three years for surgery in the V.A. system, and when their incompetence led to yet another delay, I went to a privately-run facility, and had the surgery [a reverse total shoulder replacement] within a week.
We have the finest healthcare in the world here. Why else would healthcare professionals from around the world come here to practice? Why would you want to destroy this by putting the incompetent federal government in charge??!!

 

[gazelam]

The trouble with this sort of argument is that it could be applied to any government at all. It is the essential and necessary nature of a government that everyone is forced to participate for the benefit of society at large - and that not all of those things will benefit everyone equally.

Now there is certainly an argument to be had that some things are or are not the legitimate business of government. But I think the mere appeal to the fact that it is forced fails, simply because all government involves force on some level. If all humans were willing to live in peace, love, and perfect charity towards each other there would be no need for government - but we all know that won’t happen on this earth.

There’s lots to agree with in your response and a very limited forum in which to opine. I was speaking specifically about medicine. In the US the Constitution specifically grants 17 powers to the US Congress, none of which include setting up a public health care system. The power to do so has been reserved to the individual states. I do believe that the federal government ought to raise and maintain an army and navy, regulate commerce, etc., at public expense. It is my own personal opinion that in the next life I will be judged by my Maker regarding how I treated the less fortunate. And I personally believe that my maker will be very unimpressed if the only response I can give is that I voted to politicians who advocated socialized medicine. I do not believe that publicly funded health care is is some sort of moral good and I do not believe that privately funded health care is some sort of vice. Also, the US government is $20 trillion in debt. Expanding Medicaid will essentially increase the federal debt. Is it morally right to welcome unborn generations with larger and larger debt? That’s my $0.02 worth. Take care and God bless!

 

[gazelam]

And if someone doesn’t want to pay taxes, we could just let his house burn down if there’s a fire since he wouldn’t be contributing to the fire department. And he could always ride overland on a horse since he wouldn’t be paying for road repairs.

Or benevolent family members, neighbors, and organizations could help out in a time of medical need.

 

[Socrates92]

And if someone doesn’t want to pay taxes, we could just let his house burn down if there’s a fire since he wouldn’t be contributing to the fire department. And he could always ride overland on a horse since he wouldn’t be paying for road repairs.

The fire department is one thing (as is the police force and national security). When it comes to roads though, there is no inherent reason as tech develops that it couldn’t be funded 100% through a private toll system that bills for actual use of said roads.

 

[Socrates92]

Medical care gets skewed with the free market. There are often few providers for services, and the expense makes it difficult to start a new provider for many cases of specialized care. Usually there is no cheaper option, nor can people choose to do without.

Why do you think it is that there is such limited competition? It’s not inherent to the nature of healthcare itself.

 

[DarkLight]

Why do you think it is that there is such limited competition? It’s not inherent to the nature of healthcare itself.

I think a lot of the problem is space and expense. There’s more competition when it comes to things like family doctors. But if I want to be able to offer chemo, or manufacture insulin, I need millions of dollars to get started. Even historically, hospitals have generally been started by large organizations rather than by individuals, which is inherently going to reduce their number.

Really, though, I think that’s becoming more of a problem overall as tech develops though. In old times, if I wanted to sell clothes, I could learn the craft and set up shop and sell them out of my home. Now, I need a factory and a workforce and deals with major store chains to sell your clothing to even hope to be competitive. If you look behind your clothing brands, there aren’t nearly as many names as you would think.

My worry has always been that corporations can eventually become a government that we don’t even get to vote for, simply because you can’t opt out of the system and still get your needs met, because the combination of unchecked capitalism and the possibilities offered by mass manufacture can essentially act to keep power in the hands of a few.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Case in point, the number cited was about $100 grand annually in income. That is such a wildly varying barometer depending on where you live. You’d be a king in Wheeling, WV, and poor in San Francisco. There is no constitutional charter for the federal government to be involved either. A one size fits all doesn’t work for this many people.

Let the states, who best known their constituents, handle as they see fit.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Happy Cake Day!

 

[gazelam]

Thank you!!

 

[Thorolfr]

So if someone had an expensive medical condition that cost $5000 per month to treat, do you think that benevolent family members and neighbors would be willing to cover the costs?

 

[gazelam]

So if someone had an expensive medical condition that cost $5000 per month to treat, do you think that benevolent family members and neighbors would be willing to cover the costs?

Well, how seriously do they take Christ’s commandment to love one another? And have they negotiated with the provider to lower the cost?

Where is the US government going to get $5000? It’s already $20 trillion in debt. Should the Federal Reserve create a few trillion more dollars out of thin air? Should we just borrow more from China to pay our bills we already can’t afford?

 

[Augustinian]

So if someone had an expensive medical condition that cost $5000 per month to treat, do you think that benevolent family members and neighbors would be willing to cover the costs?

I guess that would depend on the affluence and generosity of their neighbors.

But if that financial resource isn’t available, there are already programs including Medicaid which assist destitute individuals and families with medical expenses.

To impose massive regulations on the vast majority of us who don’t need expensive medical care or have the financial resources available , is what people have a problem with.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

So if someone had an expensive medical condition that cost $5000 per month to treat, do you think that benevolent family members and neighbors would be willing to cover the costs?

Well, how seriously do they take Christ’s commandment to love one another? And have they negotiated with the provider to lower the cost?

Where is the US government going to get $5000? It’s already $20 trillion in debt. Should the Federal Reserve create a few trillion more dollars out of thin air? Should we just borrow more from China to pay our bills we already can’t afford?

How much power or leverage do some family members and neighbors have to negotiate with a hospital or a dialysis company or a drug company? And how many family members and neighbors have enough money themselves to pay thousands of dollars a month even if they love their family member and want to help? And that’s just one family member. A lot of drugs nowadays that are still under patent protection typically cost $300 or more per month. Some cost $1000 or more per month.

And as for the government, it could raise taxes to pay its costs. And after the recent Republican tax cuts which mostly benefited the very wealthy, the Federal Government is going to be even more in debt.

 

[Augustinian]

How much power or leverage do some family members and neighbors have to negotiate with a hospital or a dialysis company

Many hospitals are owned by charitable outfits, others are owned by the county government.

As far as dialysis, End Stage Renal Disease qualifies someone for medicare regardless of age and without a waiting period.

 

[Augustinian]

And as for the government, it could raise taxes to pay its costs. And after the recent Republican tax cuts which mostly benefited the very wealthy, the Federal Government is going to be even more in debt.

Maybe. The tax cuts that were passed are really growing the economy and increasing the base which can be taxed. If someone’s income rises, they pay more taxes, and if they are suddenly working, they may no longer be in need of food stamps or EBT cards, cutting government expenses. Under President Trump, the number of food stamp recipients has plummeted.

 

[Thorolfr]

But if that financial resource isn’t available, there are already programs including Medicaid which assist destitute individuals and families with medical expenses.

To impose massive regulations on the vast majority of us who don’t need expensive medical care or have the financial resources available , is what people have a problem with.

As far as I know, Medicaid is a government run health care program that is paid for by both the Federal Government and the states. But gazelam said that he was against government involvement in health care.