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

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
philipl said:
What taxes are you going to raise? If you just raise the income tax not matter what you do the government will only get 18% to 20% of GDP. So that wont work as we run deficit spending right now. You can raise Medicare/Medicaid tax. But to cover all Americans at a basic level will force the government to spend another 3 trillion a year. This wont be a 1.5% raise in the tax. You’re are talking 15%, to 25%. That means a person earning $35,000. That is about $8,000 a year. That is for Medicaid type health care. We are not talking about gold, silver, bronze but tin.
Click to expand...
In my previous post I noted that we need to reprioritize our budget. You ignored this part. We waste so much. The defense budget is ridiculous. We are Americans for God’s sake. We can do better. Everyone here compares our current system to other systems which don’t work so well. Where is our spirit for being the best and inventing new things that do work. I think our ancestors who fought and invented the American way are rolling in their graves. It isn’t about “making America Great Again”. It is about “Making America Even Greater than it Currently Is”. We have a bunch of lazy leadership in this country who aren’t interested in figuring out something new.

OK. End of my rant. Please, no lectures. Obviously I lean left, to say the least. I just get tired of the same old tired arguments about working with what we have. We can do better.
 
Last edited:
DarkLight said:
The question is, what is the option for those people? Are we going to repeatedly spend thousands of dollars on ER bills instead? Are we going to house and feed people who can’t work because they can’t afford their meds? Or are we just going to let people die for lack of money?
Click to expand...
It probably depends on the chronic condition. I expect many will learn to manage their condition for considerably less cost. In other cases there will be unpaid ER bills that exceed basic coverage.

Will still end up with significant cash that can be spent on healthcare for the masses of people not covered for the basics.

It’s bad policy to always say “yes” to the squeaky wheel
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
It probably depends on the chronic condition. I expect many will learn to manage their condition for considerably less cost. In other cases there will be unpaid ER bills that exceed basic coverage.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking primarily of conditions that can only be stabilized with regular treatment.

Think of diabetes for example - someone with diabetes can have a stable, productive life, if they have regular access to insulin and testing equipment. They can go to school, get a job, and go on to live a normal life, so long as they keep getting their supplies. But those supplies run a couple hundred dollars a month. If a diabetic doesn’t get insulin they’re going to be in and out of the ER, but also they likely won’t be able to hold down a job or take care of themselves, so unless we’re ok with just tossing them out on the street because they aren’t working we’ll be spending money to feed and house and clothe them instead.

There’s no way to manage the condition for cheaper, unless you find some way to make insulin and testing supplies cheaper. Type 1, for example, is life-long and starts in childhood, so there’s no way to avoid it and no way to make people be responsible for taking care of it earlier - but people can have basically normal lives so long as they get that medication.

There are a lot of conditions like that nowadays, where people can basically live the same lives everyone else can so long as they get regular medication and a doctor overseeing it. But that medicine is expensive and poor people often can’t afford it.
 
I’m speaking in general but do we give them all insulin pumps or only support lower cost alternatives?

We can’t afford to give everyone the best and latest treatments offered by technology.
 
QwertyGirl said:
In my previous post I noted that we need to reprioritize our budget. You ignored this part. We waste so much. The defense budget is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This shows what the government spends money on each year. We dont bring in enough to cover mandatory spending.


This one breaks down just what the government has promised yet cant pay.


This showing that raising taxes wont make a difference.

In the next 15 years SS, medicare, and Medicaid will take 100% of all revenue the federal government collects. “free medical care” will add to that 2 to 3 trillion a year. That will be 6 to 7 trillion a year just to cover entitlement spending. Nothing else. No military, no government jobs,



So if you can find and show any lecture that shows how we can “reprioritize our budget” that allows the federal government to add trillions of yearly spending, I will be more than happy to watch them a debate it with you. But saying we need to “reprioritize our budget” isnt the same as doing it.

BTW, there are estimates thatt unfunded mandate spending will be as high as 150 trillion.
 
Last edited:
I’d say supply insulin pumps in cases where injections have been shown to be ineffective in controlling the disorder. We don’t need the latest and greatest, necessarily. My goal here is more that we can get people to where they can work and function in society - even eventually being able to afford better care on their own. The worry is refusing to care for chronic conditions properly results in more people who need assistance in other ways.
 
QwertyGirl said:
You ignored this part. We waste so much. The defense budget is ridiculous. We are American’s for God’s sake.
Click to expand...
I suppose that America could reduce the salaries of the military, but I don’t think that would go over very well.
 
QwertyGirl said:
OK. End of my rant. Please, no lectures. Obviously I lean left, to say the least. I just get tired of the same old tired arguments about working with what we have. We can do better.
Click to expand...
One thing you could do is convince you left-leaning compadres to limit medical liability so that malpractice insurance isn’t so outrageously expensive. How many less fortunate are denied health care because of high priced malpractice insurance? Whenever conservatives attempt to implement medical tort reform, the libs go ballistic!!
 
Reagan was supposed to have made SS and Medicare solvent for quite some time. What happened?
 
Or impose a surtax on the military like they did in 1969 to balance the budget.
 
Or simply decrease the size of it. Be content to have the largest military in the world and not try to have the largest by a greater percentage. America is the biggest and best at killing others, yet trails in keeping its own citizens alive.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Or simply decrease the size of it. Be content to have the largest military in the world
Click to expand...
Actually, America has the 3rd largest military in the world, behind Red China and India.

However, the people we do have are very well equipped.

I believe the most important military expense we have is military research. Someone is going to develop the next generation of super weapons, and I’d rather it be America than someone really hostile.

WWII was decided by military technology. If America loses the race to build the bomb to Germany or Japan, if Germany races and gets their V2 missiles and jets moving a year or so earlier, we could have easily lost.
 
Is there a problem (I realized there is a lot of strife in this thread).
 
Then I ask you, what thinking out side the box will create this utopian world you believe we can create? All I am asking for is a realistic discussion with facts to show it can be done. You honestly believe we can have free medical care for everyone by thinking outside the box, yet you show none of that outside the box thinking.
 
I want to remind everyone that to keep the conversation civil in this thread, one of my other threads appeared to be spiraling out of control and there was one comment I found disturbing in this thread as well. Again, just want to remind it to keep it civil and focus on arguments.
 
I have previously asked posters for specific spending reductions … aircraft carriers was one … turns out that the proposals don’t work out.

Similar global or broad ideas on health care and/or financing don’t work out either.
 
Perhaps look at it at a symbolic manner? Monte, could you theoretically see someone embittered over the fact that while they or their neighbors struggle (people struggling to make rent, people who can’t afford insurance or see a therapist, schools that are always cutting corners (like reducing art and music programs, laying off teachers and increasing class sizes, not being able to hire school counselors, social workers and psychologist to address needs), social services always having to be ready on being the first on the chopping block, homeless and domestic violence shelters/programs that have to turn away those in need) they see a large and perhaps over-sized military while domestic and community needs go without (from their perspective)? In Europe, the people do not seem to struggle as much, theoretically, why must Americans struggle while their cohort do not? How would you respond to those critiques? I would like to hear your answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top