but it’s always fraud when your side loses.
No, it’s always fraud no matter who loses. And if you didn’t see it in other posts of mine, I didn’t vote for Trump in either election. I wrote in Ted Cruz in 2016, and I wrote in Mike Pence in 2020.
He sure did turn into a trump bootlicker
Just like every Democrat and Barack Obama since the small group of Democrats who retired in 2011 who had reservations about Obamacare.
how’s the medicare treating you, Billy?
Just fine. I paid taxes for years, which not unlike what you do with a long term care insurance policy in the provide sector. If you pay in, you have the right to collect benefits later.
So let’s do this for everyone
Slogans and telling people that you are going to give them all the medical care that they want for nothing are easy. Administrating the programs and paying for them is much harder.
You need to consider these points:
• How are you going pay for it?
• How are you going to administrate it avoiding massive fraud and waste?
• Are you going to give medical to everyone who walks across the U.S. border? If so that means that you will be offering medical care to the world. How do you pay for that? How do provide enough qualified people to provide the care?
• Do American citizens get any better care than illegal aliens?
• Who determines which people get care? Will it be the doctors or government bureaucrats? This is the “death panel” issue which has bothered conservatives and liberals.
Slogans and promises are sexy and easy. Administration and efficient operations are difficult and boring for many people.
You are pushing the easy stuff. Would you care to address the more difficult issues?
We all are, with taxes. Just like social security
I don’t know, but tell me when you figure out how to do that under our current system and we might have a starting point
Doctors are already legally obligated to treat anyone who enters a hospital. I don’t think it will be that different. Other countries with universal healthcare only usually give it to visa holders, but will treat anyone in an emergency. We’d do it like that.
Not in the ER, but that’s already the case.
We already have this. At the height of the first wave of the pandemic when we were running out of ventilators people were sent home to die if their chance for survival was low.
does anyone on medicare ever cost more than the money they put in?
All civilized countries except the USA treat medical care in the same way that the US treats old-age pensions, or in the same way the US treats coverage by the fire department.
The UK does it the ‘fire department’ way: everyone pays taxes, medical care is free at the time of consumption.
Others do it with some mixture of the Fire Department and Social Security way: you have to have a self-financed account to cover medical care, but the state may also pay some of the costs from taxes that everyone pays.
The Australians seem to have a pretty good system, a mix of public and private: https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/the-australian-health-system
Ferociously-capitalist Singapore — where, I understand, it’s illegal to be unemployed – has a more force-you-to-save approach.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore ]
Almost all of these systems have methods to limit costs, because medical care can be given with various levels of ‘luxury’, and ‘extras’,
which can be excluded from ‘free’ cover.
One problem with medical care – unlike, say, old-age pensions, or fire-department service – is that it’s very hard to calculate future costs (even pensions have had the problem that planners didn’t realize life spans were increasing). Medical care has gotten more expensive over time. This is actually a consequence of a good thing: we’ve applied (expensive) technology to extending human life spans. MRI machines are very useful, but they are expensive. No one proposes to scrap them to save money.
American conservatives have been ideologically-colonized by Libertarians on this issue. Our Libertarian friends have not yet convinced us to auction off the National Parks, but they have convinced us to have African-style medical converage, in terms of how it’s paid for.
The pre-Trump Republican Party leadership fought against a sensible national healthcare system tooth and nail, for the same reason they turned a blind eye to illegal immigration (cheap labor for some of the donor class) and the destruction of American industry (the donor class would rather employ cheap labor in China and Mexico than American workers).
Things have begun to change.
If we can reject this Libertarian ideological colonization, and come up with a sound conservative approach to funding national health care, we have a good chance to split the Democrats’ base right down the middle.
The real fight with the Left is not over this or that government program – where mistakes, including the mistake of ‘too much government’ can be reversed – but over the defense of Western civilization, which if dismantled will be very hard to restore.
I am sure that my in-laws, who are both 92, have collected far more than they paid in. My mother-in-law, has had extensive health problems that have covered by the government. She has gone though 100’s of thousands of dollars in private insurance as well as equal amounts of their own assets.
One of the great issues is how much is spent on people during the last months or weeks of life.
so this isn’t fair, right?
That really depends, and gets into value judgements.
Resources are limited. If you dispute that, you are a progressive fool. How much do you spend on children who have a life ahead of them as opposed to a very old person with no possibility of a normal life? Do you take extraordinary measurements to keep a hopelessly ill old person going for days or weeks, or do you help the child? If you answer “both” you need to watch old people at the end of life up close and personal.
Money is unlimited because the government can now create it with computer entries; medical resources are not.
I have watched my mother pass on when old age made things hopeless, and I am watching my mother-in-law. You don’t want to go there.
how much do you spend on tax breaks for billionaires and on a bloated military? How much do I pay for your bad lifestyle choices?
Sorry, Social security is going broke, and anyone who started drawing out since 2010 will get less out than they put in.
Taxation is not a magic answer, if you don’t build it sustainably, it won’t be sustainable.
As the French have known about their system for well over a decade.
Nothing. A tax break is them keeping their money. By definition, you spend nothing.
This is also a read heering; any “Socialist country” doesn’t fund its welfare state through taxation on the Rich, it does it through taxation on the middle class.
Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, they’re all like this.
The only exceptions are the out-and-out free market locales like the Petro states in the Gulf, or Singapore, who just have low taxes on everyone’s income, and 0% capital gains.
1 Let’s not. In addition to the inefficiency of a colossal government bureaucracy rife with waste and abuse, it’s never a good idea to make the people so dependent upon the government (especially the Feds) for personal needs. That way lies totalitarianism. It happens slower in free countries and small ones, but the power of government tends to grow with such dependence.
2 Not that I like SS, but there is, among other things, how much interest the individual might have earned on the money that went into SS taxes.
1 Actually, we had the starting point a long time ago before FDR when churches and other genuine charities saw to such things. You might say: “But what about certain social groups, or those who fell through the cracks?” Well, you’re going to have that in a government system, too; but churches and charities are more open to correcting their mistakes over time. Government tends to trade small problems for big ones.
2 And we’re already looking at healthcare shortages, particularly nurses.