Why Do Trump Supporters Not Want Medicare For All?

Taxes would be higher, but you wouldn't be paying a premium or a deductible. You would have more money in your pocket.

 

Because many on the right are brainwashed.

 

We understand how math works instead of just calling it racist.

 

Emergency Room will fix ya up, if its really serious, even if you do not have medical insurance.

 

You do realize that Medicare has a 20% deductible do you not?

 

Because it would be economically ruinous for the nation.

Oh, Medicare for all would put more money in my pocket and save us all money? Really?

Yeah, that's what they said about Obamacare.

Don't you people ever learn?

 

Let's say you're a progressive liberal with a family of 4. You are making a bunch of money in the tech industry, say $500k a year. Your employer pays for health insurance or you're buying it yourself (a nice cadillac plan) for around $15-20k/year. It works for you and your family.

Now the government enacts UHC. Yay! Right?

But the government also charges you about 10% of your income - $50k/year.

This is why it will never happen, even if the Democrats achieve a super majority in both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Rich liberals are going to freak out at the cost. "But, but, but ... You said someone else was going to pay for it! You said it would lower our cost!"

If you think rich liberals in Congress are serious about making the rich pay more to finance UHC, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

 

yeah, cause so many American voters make 500k a year - at most it would be two cents on the dollar, not 10%

 

What does it have to do with who’s president and who supports that president?

I wouldn’t have more money. I’d have less. You’d have more. That’s why you want it and I don’t. Simple, huh?

 

I’d be paying more for even WORSE care that will have to be rationed....like UK, like Canada. And what would the salaries of doctors be? How would that translate to medical school costs? Medical care would get worse. Quality of care would obviously get worse as doctors will be paid less and the smartest people won’t see the value in it any more. Combine that with the entire central and southern continent marching north to gain citizenship since there will be nothing stopping them anymore. The system would fall apart.

it’ll all spiral down a hole. And I’m not a Trump supporter.

 

But in theory there is no need to raise taxes.....
In 1750... during the Lincoln Presidency and again by JFK a very different
way of financing a large percentage of government spending was used... that
created no need for more taxation.

Do we Canadians owe America an apology for 1750 - 1783?



The History of Banking Control in the United States

There is a related topic to this though that must be understood before this can be done right:

Best explanation for Weimar Republic Inflation I ever read....

So to answer your question clearly... Republicans do not want medicare for all due to their ignorance of USA history and selfishness....... and pride..... and their tendency to misunderstand a statement by the Apostle Paul.

2Th 3:10

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

 

And one can keep one's doctor, right? Where did I hear these promises before LOL

On a serious note though, the employees pay just a fraction of the cost, currently the employer pays 60-80% of the premium... As the employer will no longer be contributing towards the cost of coverage, where will the money come from?

 

Why wouldn't the employer keep paying that 60-80% but to the government to fund Medicare instead of to the insurance companies?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it's part of the plan now. If it is, please point me to a plan stipulating that whatever employers currently contribute towards private health insurance will be collected from them in additional taxes and allocated to Medicare.

Moreover, me think employers, using their lobbyists, donors, campaign contributions, special interest groups etc will find countless ways to weasel out of paying their share...when they no longer have to compete with other businesses for the talent, they will have every incentive to minimize their healthcare related contributions.

 

Come on, Fresh, you know better than that. Present day Medicare - just Part A - costs 2.9 cents on the dollar. (Payroll taxes only pay for Part A.)

Seniors account for 34% of all medical spending. You cannot add the other 66% of medical spending (accountable to the under 65 demographic) for 2 cents on the dollar.

Since seniors account for one third of all medical spending, and under 65 accounts for two thirds, this means that we can take the cost of Medicare Part A for seniors and multiply it by three to see what it would cost to put the entire country under Medicare Part A.

2.9 X 3 = 8.7

8.7 cents on the dollar. But wait! That does not pay for what's in Part B (services) and Part D (pharma).

Americans will be forced to do one of three things: Get along with no coverage for services and pharma, buy insurance for those things, or they can demand that the politicians raise taxes so that those things can be covered. If they do, say goodbye to that 8.7 cents on the dollar. Part A represents about 40% of Medicare spending. Parts B and D cost about 60% of Medicare spending. To add those parts in we would need to multiply the 8.7 cents by 1.5 and add that amount to the original 8.7.

8.7 X 1.5 = 13.05

So the 13 cents covers Parts B and D, and the 8.7 cents covers Part A.

13 + 8.7 = 21.7

21 cents on the dollar covers everybody with all parts of Medicare.

Now let's take away the costs of duplication of effort through all the insurance companies and profit, and let's just say hypothetically that UHC would cost 25% less. So that would take away maybe 5 cents bringing down the cost to around 16 cents on the dollar. The 5 cents in savings was just a wild guess on my part.

It's still 16 cents on the dollar, not 2 cents.

Over and over, I keep telling people that I am not against doing good things for our people, if we are willing to pay for them. And as soon as I bring up numbers and costs, they are simply denied or ignored, or the conversation simply stops.

If we want this, then we have to get real. We have to face facts. The politicians need to stop obfuscating and lying.

I agree with you that there aren't that many $500k families, other than in CA. But just remember who the donor class is. Just wait until the millionaires and multi millionaires find out what this is going to cost them. 16% would cost a $1 million dollar family $160k. That would be a hoot, watching Democratic members of Congress squirm, lie, and obfuscate to avoid responsibility for the pain they were causing their donors.

I don't expect Republicans to support this. What would be entertaining is watching a super majority of Democrats in Congress (and with the Presidency) trying to pass this.

They won't do it.

 

I'm not read in on any of the "Medicare for all" plans so I'm unaware whether or not this is part of any of the various plans or not. I was just arguing that the employee wouldn't necessarily have to cover the part of coverage that the employer currently pays. If "the plans" call for increased taxation of the employees to cover premiums then it kind of follows that corporate tax rates would be increased in kind.

Keeping corporations from weaseling out of their share is up to the legislature. I know they don't have the best track record as of late, but again, I'm just arguing what could be done so that the individual doesn't necessarily need to carry the entire load.

 

The numbers aren't there and there are far too many loose ends. Does one get to keep their private plans? How to allocate a huge corporate windfall to pay for it? How about this as a public option, any takers? Medicare is still plenty pricey and most folks carry a "Medicare Advantage" plan run by private insurers. This is popular. Does this go away?

Here's an idea - Medicare for those who want it, run by private insurers under governmental cost and profit restraints. This is what most seniors have and it works well. Any objections to using what works?

 

Emphasis added by me. That sounds like a Mayor Pete sound bite.

 

I think you have to look into it more closely than that.

The employee could be contributing through payroll deductions for their plan, the employer could be contributing, AND the corporation is paying people to design and administer the healthcare of its employees. On top of that is the healthcare claims management, which I think most corporations contract out. This all costs time and effort above and beyond the actual cost of claims.

Basically, the employer is required to do all those things that Medicare and insurance companies already do.

I suspect you will find that the employee in your example isn't as bad off as you project.

The employer will be better off, because the employer doesn't have to be in the healthcare insurance business. The HR department can be smaller, the cost of management in the company and the cost of claims management is eliminated.

Surely that's a significant savings for the company.

And, all these functions are already being done by Medicare, so the change is only a matter of the number of people covered.

I don't know how this actually costs out. But, I think there are important elements that could make a difference.

 

You have some good points.

On your last, I agree we should use what works, but Medicare is woking. Insurers don't beat Medicare on efficiencey. And, Insurers absolutley do need a profit.

Almost all first world nations allow augmenting the standard national offering through buying supplemental plans from for-profit insurers. As you point out, Medicare does. I doubt that will change that.

I think it could start as a public option. That was going to be part of Obamacare from the start, but it had to be cut for purely political reasons.

 

And who may I ask you will be paying for those who want it and what will happen is only people who truly need expensive treatment sign up (as this usually works) and the cost will skyrocket, who will pay the deficit?

 

Especially in the modern workplace, where everything can be done so quickly by computers, simply signing someone up for insurance at work is a quick process, and someone in the payroll data entry department just tells the computer to take out your contribution to the premium. I don't think this is a huge burden on employers. And employers do not handle claims. The insurance company does.

Will, I noticed you said, "I suspect that the employee in your example isn't as bad off as you project".

But we deserve better than that from our leaders, don't we? "I don't know" or "I won't tell you" doesn't cut it.

Check out my post #15.

It uses some simple math using some known facts.

 

Well, and I am arguing that in the real world where we both live, the democrat campaign promises are lies.... They've been campaigning on health care, on poverty, on homelessness, on income inequality forever and after 8 years of Bill Clinton and 8 years of Obama all these problems are worse than they'd ever been.

Heck, the Dems campaigned on healthcare and pocketbook issues as recently as in 2018, how is it working out so far? They are not even trying, they are obsessed with disenfranchising 65 million americans, they have not moved a finger on healthcare.

Anyway, the point is the Dems never deliver on campaign promises they make and you think they will deliver on what they don't even bother to promise? What you are saying can indeed be done... The fully owned by special interests democrats are not the people who can get anything good for the american people done.

 

Because we don't believe democratic math.

sorry, but they'll just have to prove that it works at a state level, and then if other states want in on that, then great! They can mirror the legislation and no problems. The problem is getting people to believe democratic math.

 

I know that entering a checkbox next to a name is easy. What is hard is that companies compete for employees with their healthcare offerings and employees respond with what they want on a continuing basis. As a result, plans where I've worked are changing all the time, with a staff in HR that are responding to customer questions on a daily basis and are working on the next level of offerings.

Even Medicare isn't without change.
[/QUOTE]

Will, I noticed you said, "I suspect that the employee in your example isn't as bad off as you project".

But we deserve better than that from our leaders, don't we? "I don't know" or "I won't tell you" doesn't cut it.

Check out my post #15.

It uses some simple math using some known facts.[/QUOTE]
Of course that is true. The question is whether these details are all worked out NOW!

That's not the way we go about creating new public policy, especially on issues this large. We say we want healthcare improvements, so we put together a bipartisan committee in congress and worked out Obamacare over a year. We wanted a southern border wall, and then many years later we are where we are - we did not have the detiails at the election. The same goes with immigration, where we created the plan of 2013 only after having creatd our current healthcare system - again using congressional committees that included both parties. In that case, the Senate voted in favor, but the vote was blocked in the House by Boehner for political reasons.

That is going to happen again. We are NOT going to see the "Bernie" plan or the "Warren" plan or whatever - just like what we have today is NOT what Obama wanted.

But, we still need to understand stuff like how much corporations are paying for what services, etc., in order to see if there is any rationality to various types of plans.