Your numbers don’t make sense and are denying reality. It’s very simple.
Night 2 of the 2nd Dem Debate
- Thread starter OSU_Orlando
- Start date
They make absolute sense and you have yet to respond to them. You also aren't responding to historical precedent and future needs/changes.
You aren't engaging any of these plans on their merits. You are simply yelling out a number and then claiming doomsday.
Irrational fear. Reationism.
Yes, I have responded. Her plan calls for a cut on private insurance slashing choices that consumers have. Government run heath programs, specifically looking at the VA has been a major failure, and now you’re going to strip away choice for a one size fits all solution in Medicare For All.
Taxing just the top 1% or in your example the citizens who make $10 million and over is not going to support the programs that Kamala and others are proposing. I haven’t even touched on free college tuition and supporting off undocumented immigrants into the country for additional benefits. You’re in La La land if you believe we can afford these programs on their face value. Saying that, should their be some changes? Duh! This country isn’t perfect. But let’s look at realistic options and have honest conversations about why Medicare for all sucks. It’s a fact that socialized medicine increases taxes not just for the rich but for all, there are longer wait times for procedures. One can also argue that the quality of care could diminish. These are real problems.
First, "she" isn't the only one advocating for a Medicare for All system. There are differences among these proposals and I am starting to wonder if you even recognize that.
Second, "she" is being attacked from the left because she preserves choices for consumers within in a Medicare for All system. She is closer to your viewpoint than either Sanders or Warren. She is trying to have that honest conversation you claim to want. And yet, you seem obsessed with attacking her. Go figure.
And lastly, she and other progressives have been wanting to improve the VA for years now. Guess who stands in the way?
Seriously, do you even know anything about these plans?
First, Harris' plan would tax more than just the 1% but she would not tax those making less than $100,000. Second, Sanders' plan would put in place a 4% income-based premium on households making more than $29,000. Both then reference the gross SAVINGS that would occur for middle class families from a single payer system. Something apparently you continue to ignore.
The real problem OSU is the millions of Americans who don't have health care insurance and have lost it under the current President.
The real problem is the mother who awakens in the middle of the night with a sick child and debates whether she should go to the emrgency room because she doesn't know if she can afford the copay.
The real problem is the massive profits that insurance companies continue to make in this country on health care while many die every day without health insurance.
The real problem is that we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet we have to listen to fearmongers claim we can't afford healthcare for all.
The real problem is that almost every other advanced nation has a universal healthcare system and it works...but yet, we have to listen to fearmongers claim it can't work here.
The real problem is that some continue to see health care as a BUSINESS and not a human RIGHT.
We can easily afford any of the Medicare for All systems that have been proposed. EASILY. The only thing that currently stands in the way is insurance companies who are afraid of losing billions and those who buy into the fearmongering they spew.
I’m only going off on Kamala because she’s being disingenuous. Bernie is already on record saying taxes will increase for the middle class, at least he’s honest about it.
Medicare for all without private insurance options aka employer offered healthcare plans would be devastating to millions of Americans that have offered their labor in exchange for these beneficial plans. They make a choice to go to work and get compensated monetarily as well as benefits that are greater than others. When you strip this option away it not only hurts consumers in the labor market but employers trying to stand out from other companies in the recruitment of top talent. My health insurance and many others craps all over Medicare as it stands right now with better quality care at a reduced price via decreased premiums and low deductibles. My company decided to provide this to benefit to others, their choice, it was my choice to work for them and accept those benefits, an consensual exchange of labor and benefits.
Kamala’s plan strips that option. That is a fact.
Every American already has access to insurance and through their own choices they can do what is best for their family. Increasing taxes and forcing people to choose with such limited options is wrong.
You want to talk about mandates for pre-existing conditions, kicking big pharmaceutical companies and insurance company ass? I’m with you! Let’s whoop some metaphorical ass
Harris' plan doesn't increase taxes on those making less than $100,000. She isn't being disingenuous.
And now, you move the goalposts. You move from private insurance plans in your fearmongering to private employer-based insurance plans.
But again, there is a simple response to this talking point. Americans should not have to choose between their health care and a job! Employers shouldn't be in the "business" of providing health care. And employees shouldn't have to worry about their health care if they lose their job, have to leave their job, get a better job with less "benefits", etc.
And a universal health care system would not be devasting at all to Americans who have offered their labor in exchange for a health care plan because they still will have a health care plan!
But it won't crap all over the Medicare plan(s) that are being proposed. Again, you are showing how little you know about these plans.
Every Medicare for All plan that has been proposed includes greatly improving the current Medicare plans while also reducing costs in a way that no private insurance plan will do on its own.
Yes it does and it also provides you better options (i.e. still a choice). Sanders' plan gives you a better option while also insuring ALL Americans.
And yet, you still whine and embrace the fearmongering of the insurance companies. You fight against that which will help us all.
Nah, we have already won the debate regarding pre-existing conditions (thank you President Obama) and taking it too big phamaceutical/insurance companies.
It is time to move on and provide health care (a right) to all Americans, just like all other nations in the developed world do.
Households that make under $100,000 is different than individuals. Do you know how many people that is? That means the burden of costs fall on 30% of the country or they will see increases on taxes. Not to sound like a douche but that is me, my parents, aunt and uncle...we either work for companies that provide great healthcare at a very reasonable amount or own their own business and become dependent on choices provided by private insurance. Newsflash, private insurance means both employer provided and those who go outside and seek insurance not provided by the government. Consumers choose the company that fits their needs the best.
Quote from her plan:
That’s why I propose that we exempt households making below $100,000
Also, the $2 trillion dollars she is proposing that would be raised is a total over 10 years. She will likely need to tap into portions of the Bernie plan to even come close to funding and could include Capital Gains taxes and increasing taxes overall, heck here is another quote from her website and she's totally onboard with raising taxes.
Senator Sanders, for example, has put forward a number of ways to help pay for his Medicare for All plan, including an income based premium paid by employers, higher taxes on the top 1%, taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income, among others. .
I think these are good options, especially making the top 1% and corporations pay their fair share through a more progressive income, payroll, and estate tax.
Also, find it funny...her plan on lowering prescription medication costs is her administration determining what is a fair price and if Congress fails to act, she will use Executive Orders to lower them herself.
As president, she’ll require pharmaceutical companies to set fair prices for prescription drugs and tax profits made from abusive drug prices at a rate of 100 percent. These profits will go back directly to consumers. And if Congress refuses to act within 100 days, the Harris Administration will investigate price-gouging by pharma companies on her own and take executive action to lower the cost of their drugs.
Putting faith in the government to lower prices is playing Russian Roulette, you don't want to be known as Moscow MyTwoCents right?
Again, you are still treating this under a business model. Health care should not be a business. That is the lie you are buying into so that insurance companies can make their billions why you think you are getting some great deal. And meanwhile, millions of Americans go without.
But hey, as long as you get the crumbs the insurance companies throw your way you are happy, right?
Perhaps, but you continue to ignore the savings aspect of all this too. Also, you need to keep in mind that Harris is trying to add to this conversation with another path to Medicare For All. Democrats are currently having a serious conversation about the best approach and that is the point of a primary.
I personally tend to lean towards Sanders' approach but I'm also listening to Harris' ideas as well as others who recognize that health care is a right and are fighting for universal health care.
With all that said, you are beating a dead horse here OSU. Be it Saders, or Warren, or Harris' version of Medicare for All, you have been shown how they can easily be paid for and the postiive impact it would have on our nation. If you still want to embrace the insurance companies arguments, so be it. I doubt I will be able to convince you if that is the case.
You keep bringing up savings without any numbers to support your premise. You can't use that lack of information and cite that it will be cheaper.Again, you are still treating this under a business model. Health care should not be a business. That is the lie you are buying into so that insurance companies can make their billions why you think you are getting some great deal. And meanwhile, millions of Americans go without.
But hey, as long as you get the crumbs the insurance companies throw your way you are happy, right?
Perhaps, but you continue to ignore the savings aspect of all this too. Also, you need to keep in mind that Harris is trying to add to this conversation with another path to Medicare For All. Democrats are having a conversation about the best approach and that is the point of a primary.
I personally tend to lean towards Sanders approach but I'm open to listening to ideas from Harris and others who recognize that health care is a right.
With all that said, you are beating a dead horse here OSU. Be it Saders, or Warren, or Harris' version of Medicare for All, you have been shown how they can easily be paid for and the postiive impact it would have on our nation. If you still want to embrace the insurance companies arguments, so be it. I doubt I will be able to convince you.
60% of our current government expenditures go towards Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. You want to add 150 million people onto a government run plan and believe that simply increasing the taxes on the 1%
Healthcare should have business related aspects because the government is not efficient, have been proven to not be good negotiators to reduce costs, allowing corporations and lobbyists to infiltrate discussions (FYI you might want to look up Kathleen Sebelius). Kathleen endorsed the plan, and it's being reported by some now that she helped develop the plan. Kathleen got her career started as a lobbyist and is now on several boards of private health related companies, one that received over $100 million in revenue just last year. That's Kamala's friend, someone she is telling the American people will be shut out of the process. She's straight up lying to your face.
I have to hit the bed so I will respond to your spending comment tomorrow, but I just have to say...it is clear Harris has you worried. This discussion has turned more into you attacking Harris than on the merits of a Medicare For All plan. I even told you I lean more towards Sanders' approach, and yet you pushed forward attacking Harris and talking about how she is lying lol.
Clearly she is having an impact and had an impact last night. You will disagree of course but your obsession with attacking her reveals your true thoughts/concerns.
Now, go ahead, tell me again how awful Harris and her plans are....
I'm going after Harris because she's being disingenuous, I've said a million times in this very thread.
Bernie himself has said middle class taxes will increase, not a fan of that but at least he didn't lie about it.
Be honest about it. Don't say Private Health Insurance still has a place in your plan if it doesn't, don't say we will pay for it by taxing the 1% and capital gains, trades on Wall Street. That's a bunch of BS and you're having a full bowl of it.
But private health insurace does still have a place in her plan. And Sanders is attacking her exactly for that! Is Sanders being "disingenerous" in his attack on her plan?
And I've told you now two times that I lean towards Sanders approach, and yet, you claim I'm having "a full bowl" of what Harris is adocating. lol, ok.
No it doesn't have a place in her plan, forcing insurance companies to put forth a plan with massive restriction and stipulations isn't private, you're literally telling them what to do instead allowing for competition to lower prices. If that is what is proposed, there isn't a difference in what companies offer, you are restricting an opportunity for consumers to get a better deal, if it's a cookie cutter plan with just a change of the logo and name of the company you're saying the government can pick winners and losers. When the government chooses winners and losers it leads to corruption.But private health insurace does still have a place in her plan. And Sanders is attacking her exactly for that! Is Sanders being "disingenerous" in his attack on her plan?
And I've told you now two times that I lean towards Sanders approach, and yet, you claim I'm having "a full bowl" of what Harris is adocating. lol, ok.
You're defending Harris and that's why I'm calling you out. Go to bed old man.
After the Affordable Care Act, why should anyone believe anything a Democrat says about healthcare reform or health insurance?But private health insurace does still have a place in her plan. And Sanders is attacking her exactly for that! Is Sanders being "disingenerous" in his attack on her plan?
And I've told you now two times that I lean towards Sanders approach, and yet, you claim I'm having "a full bowl" of what Harris is adocating. lol, ok.
We were told we'd save $2,500 a year on premiums. We were told we could keep our plan and our doctor if we liked them. We were told Obamacare would make healthcare more affordable, hence the name of the bill. And then we got to hear Jonathan Gruber talk about the ACA.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...ares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/
So again, why would anyone with any common sense listen to any Democrat about healthcare?
Yes they do. And again, she is being attack by Sanders and his allies for exactly this reason.
Yes, they won't enjoy the same status they currently do. Yes, they will have to operate in a new system that sees health care as a right and not a business. But they are still there. They aren't there in Sanders plan except for supplemental purposes.
And I am not defending Harris. I am defending a universal health care system, a Medicare for All plan. Harris has her plan and Sanders has his. I've clearly told you which plan I tend to support. I respect Harris' input though just as I do anyone desiring to lead us to a single payer system.
I don't know, pose that question to Biden or some of the other Democratic moderates who want to continue that approach to health care and make it somehow better. They are the ones who think a public option competing with private companies within a business approach to health care will actually improve things. I don't agree with them on that.
I support a completely new system operating under the premise that health care is a right, as does Sanders/Warren/Harris and other progressives.
Do you know what Medicare/Medicaid currently reimburses vs the cost of providing care? Do you know what out of pocket costs current Medicare beneficiaries pay? Do you know what Medicaid beneficiaries pay out of pocket for their healthcare?
Anderson Cooper: "Eventually everyone will be taken off of a private plan that their company has?
Harris: "Yes...but let me explain, I think there was a misinterpretation on the debate stage. She then doubles down on what I'm talking about, she wants to get rid of employer provided options. These are generally better options and as part of their package to get top tier talent have negotiated that plan on my behalf and offer it to me as part of my benefits. Stripping away the opportunity for employers to do this IS DUMB. Hello, that's my entire point. Americans don't want this to happen.
Health care can not and never will be a right. IF it has to be provided TO YOU and not intrinsically yours, then it isn't a right. To say that health care is a right implies that you require someone give it to you either freely or forced. What's forced servitude called again?
We have gone back and forth many times on this board. This time I give you a standing ovation! May be the best thing I've ever heard you say. Kudos!
Standing ovation!
I wonder who he thinks is going to provide his healthcare (it's a right!) if people stop pursuing careers in healthcare. Mind blowing.
That's such bunk. I could sit here and tell you obscene story after story about friends and clients getting older w debilitating pancreatitis can't get into the pancreas guy for WEEKS. They can go the Mayo and be seen much faster, and they can afford to do it but just some guy...? They have great health insurance. Another guy gets a probably bladder cancer diagnosis, tries to schedule a urologist and biopsy... weeks. Great insurance!
The current system where millions of Americans have very limited options, from few insurers, that write the policies, that are horribly complicated if not impenetrable, and are extremely expensive, and maximize a middleman's revenue, isn't practical. The medicla system has gotten to the point where you have to have some institution paying for the coverage -- not many people pay for their family's coverage out of pocket. It's a burden that has fallen on employers and frankly it should fall on the people THAT CONSUME THE SERVICE.
When instiutional employers can siphon off the best risk pool (young and healthy professionals) and leave the government to handle everyone else, it's a miracle the government can do as well as it can. Let the healthful taxpayer have some coverage....
I'm not sure I'm even for "banning" or restricting private health insurance. I just think Uncle Sam could come up with some basic or catastrophe mandatory coverage that the country would love because they're not getting bent over a barrel by large corporations mining the health care system. We've been subsidizing the old and sick's health care all this time without having the good risk to underwrite it all.
So those with pre-existing conditions should have the burden fall on them? As a healthy young man I should have the option to have a bare bones policy or a super robust healthcare plan and the decision of how much to pay and what should be generally covered (minor visits cough cough) should be on my plan.
It is a fact that wait times on average are higher under socialized medicine. You want to battle this?
Honest M4A question: Why is the government getting into the medical insurance business. If Healthcare is a RIGHT, as has been proposed in this very thread, why not just take over the hospitals and provide the services directly. That way the government is providing HEALTHCARE, not healthcare insurance. Medicare for all is a solution if you believe health insurance is a right for all. I do think we all agree that health insurance is not the same as healthcare.
