"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

When people fail to have healthcare coverage and then need medical aid, WE are the ones who pay for it.

That should be obvious.

As I pointed out, 2/3 of bankruptcies involve healthcare costs. That cost falls on all those who don't get paid for their goods and services.

Also, it results in federal and state support for hospitals that end up treating these indigents (of any age or ability).

I get a kick out of you touting Medicare - what amounts to a single payer system, but just limited to those with little or no income.

But, you are ignoring the gaps I've pointed to. The bottom line is that millions have no coverage - EVEN when they might qualify for Medicare during some period.

There are a number of challenge facing those who are spending time trying to get coverage.

And, I'd point out that low income households move in and out of circumstances where they might qualify for Medicare. It's a continuing red tape challnge, not a one time accomplishment. Not everyone has proven capable of winning at this challenge.

 

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Please do remember that we are not the only country with major pharmaceutical corporations, and our government spends a lot on medical research and implements specific laws on pricing, etc., specifically for the benefit of our pharmaceutical industry.

If enough people like that, we can have our government continue in that manner. But, I think there is real sentiment that our drug pricing is out of control and needs to get fixed.

 

-Did you respond to my singular point which is that you are saying people unable to work but then ignoring that those particular people are already covered under Medicaid?...No?

-You said not one thing to me about 2/3 of bankruptcies prior to this post...but I will respond regardless. You do realize that when someone has a serious illness and are unable to work, many of them avail themselves of bankruptcy protection specifically BECAUSE they are unable to pay their bills, and yes, the hospital costs are part of their bills but not necessarily the REASON for being unable to pay their other bills? Sincerely, have you thought about that stat to that extent? I am not saying that some people do not go into bankruptcy BECAUSE of medical bills, but nowhere NEAR 2/3.

Federally, Medicaid eligibility is available to those making 133% of the poverty line. That is the lowest eligibility. Many states raise it even higher. I would not call that "little to no income.", and that CERTAINLY covers those that are unable to work which is how YOU chose to bombastically table this discussion

-For those that qualify for Medicaid or Medicare and have not availed themselves of that UNTIL they go to the hospital, their coverage is retroactive. Always has been. Those people are accounted in the uninsured number, but they ARE in fact insured, whether they know it or not.

 

Where did I demand that gigantic consumers of infrastructure should pay no tax? What I DID say is that your facts are wrong.

You will say Amazon had tremendous profit, and paid no tax. You are missing the fact that they had huge losses 3 years prior to profits that they carried forward. All within the tax bill. The claim that companies are simply snubbing their nose at taxes and not paying is the ultimate fallacy.

The fact is, companies only pay taxes on profits. Income after expenses. This total accounts for 7% of all tax revenue generated. The other 93% comes from the top 50% of income earners.

You are complaining about corporations not paying taxes, yet you aren't even in the group of the other 93%? I would say you don't really have a dog in this fight. It's the peanut gallery wanting to be heard.

Nope. Doesn't get to be black and white for your benefit.

There are 61 MILLION people in this country, of working age, that are on disability. Thats 40% of adults, or 1 in 4 of working age adults. Bullshit.

Bull... motha... truckin... shiz. 1 in 4 working age adults in the US are not "Disabled" and unable to work. They choose NOT to work, and find a doctor to write a letter and then sit on disability and numerous other programs collecting a check on the backs of other people working. Because they are LAZY. We have created an environment, based on socialist principles, which enables these people to be lazy and sustained on the backs of the other 75% who are working.

That's wrong. That's a gross abuse of social safety nets. That's a problem.

And your comments to me are nothing more than self serving. You depend on these programs, maybe rightfully so, so you are unwilling to challenge the corruption and abuse because you are fearful it may impact your benefits.

 

What a pretentious position you sit. Telling everybody else that they need to work to support you while simultaneously telling them that they shouldn't have a voice because your morality tells them so.

 

Of course you don't have any idea.

It's pretty simple, really. A company develops a drug that is amazing, new and maybe life saving (or cures your ED). Socialist countries place a cap on the price of that drug at $3 a pill, which doesn't quite cover the cost of development. In the US, it's $12, because we don't have price caps. So we're paying for cheap medicine and medical procedures for all socialized medicine countries.

You can say, "Well, let's just put price caps in place here." All fine, except that then nobody will be incentivized to ever invent a new drug again.

Even if the company that develops the drug is in Sweden, they KNOW they can charge more for the drug in the US than they can in Sweden.

 

I was thinking more like Medicaid, Welfare, Public and Low Income Housing, Supplemental Nutrition, Healthcare Subsidizing, reduced cost utilities, public education, subsidized public transportation, Disability.... I could go on and on... but you don't want to talk about these programs. I am sure I know why.

 

What's wrong with those programs?

 

The government isn't smart enough to micromanage the economy, so they create perverse distortions in the market. Duh. The DC solution, with these programs, is to throw trillions of dollars at a "problem" but never fix it.

Like rent control. Place a cap on rent and the owner can't afford to maintain the building, so liberals whine about the conditions of the people living in the building that the owners can't afford to repair, because rent is capped.

So fricking stupid.

 

Prove it.

 

Prove which one, exactly.

This is a very common debate tactic on this site. You don't like a claim, "Muh Prove it!!!"

Which part do you wish me to prove? The bolded part?

https://www.nmhc.org/news/articles/the-high-cost-of-rent-control/

Here's a link that explains it in more detail. It's simple common sense.

 

No, that is your argument from ignorance makig a total fool of you again.

 

This isn't an issue of single payer systems.

I totally agree that there are drug pricing isseues that need to be resolved - as I've already mentioned.

 

The problem in Seattle is more that the supply is low enough that there essentially are lines waiting to rent.

The result is prices high enough that wage earners get closed out in favor of those making high tech salaries.

So, the question becomes, what are the methods that can be used to help wage earners find a place to cook their food, sleep, and do the rest of what's required for living.

One is subsidies. There is the rent control direction. There is the regulatory direction requiring that those buildig apartments create some percentage of units scaled for low income residents.

None of those is great.

And, whacking at ONE of the possible solutions is just a miserable and cheap argument.

If you want to be part of something, back a solution.

 

Nope, lets see the landlords finances.

 

Like your buddy Bronco tries to do, you can rip away at EVERY possible solution direction.

The catch is that there is a need and it is not being addressed by capitalism - for the simple reason that capitalism is all about maximizing profit, and trying to wring money from wage earning Americans isn't an attractive opportunity.

So, yes, you can rip away at capitalism, too, as long as that's what you really want to spend your time doing.

 

Nearly all of them use the tax system to take value from other peoples labor and award it to people that didn't earn the money by force.

 

Another asinine request from someone who clearly never took economics.

 

Well, I see you have ran out of logical debate so.. later. Keep mooching.

 

Still arguing in black and white.

"Support all social programs at any level of corruption or you desire people to die in the street".

You ignored my point about the amount of fraud in the disability program, and come full circle to fallacy arguments.

 

Once you have paid your taxes its no longer your money.

 

Right. That's why I'm arguing in favor of reduction in taxes to strangle these abused programs.

Want to know why Republicans and conservatives want lower taxes? This is it bub.

 

So fixing the abuse is out of the question then.

 

You have made (as have most on the left) that stealing money to fund these broken programs is not touchable by any means.. so yes, cut off the flow of money and problem fixed.

 

So yes you desire people to die in the street.