Americans Must Be Socialists

[css75]

I am probably the only person here who worked for a federal medical plan. Trust me, you do not want this, getting Access will take forever, treatment will be regulated, and when you are over a certain age or have a certain diagnosis, you will be denied. Proceed at your own peril.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I am probably the only person here who worked for a federal medical plan. Trust me, you do not want this, getting Access will take forever, treatment will be regulated, and when you are over a certain age or have a certain diagnosis, you will be denied. Proceed at your own peril.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok..I’m listening. How is treatment regulated and how are certain ages and diagnoses denied treatment versus private plans?

[Pwns]

https://apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans like the idea of “Medicare-for-all,” but support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care.

Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).

But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.

I've said this before, anyone who thinks people making $200k+ a year are going to be able to carry all the load is kidding themselves. People with mid to high 5-figure incomes will have to pay more taxes. If you doubt that you can look at how little of the deficit was closed when Obama let the GWB tax cuts expire (which were basically tax cuts for the rich, right?). Of course any future donk administration and congress could do what the Obama admin did with Obamacare and just lie about what it's going to cost people.

People also need to realize the bureaucracy is going to decide if they're worth it to get certain treatments and procedures. The alternative is letting hospitals milk the crap out of medicare like they do now. All this stuff sounds great to people until you get to the fine print.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... t-projects

Case in point...

Warren wants a wealth tax on those with assets more than $50 million. It would raise $2.75 trillion over ten years, or about 1/16 of "Medicare for all."

Ocasio-Cortez wants to raise the top marginal income tax rate to 70 percent. The conservative Tax Foundation estimates it would accrue nearly $300 billion in a decade, and liberal economists for the Washington Post place the number closer to $700 billion per decade. But even by the Post's estimation, Ocasio-Cortez's tax would only pay for roughly two percent of "Medicare for all."

[css75]

I am probably the only person here who worked for a federal medical plan. Trust me, you do not want this, getting Access will take forever, treatment will be regulated, and when you are over a certain age or have a certain diagnosis, you will be denied. Proceed at your own peril.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok..I’m listening. How is treatment regulated and how are certain ages and diagnoses denied treatment versus private plans?

My agency (VA) at the time I was there, and I hate to admit this, was best run during the Clinton administration. Vets were assigned Primary Care and was run like a private facility. All vets were granted full benefits (dental excepted).

Since then, vets are categorized. Those with service related disabilities are given priority, then others like POWs were next, and so on. There are 7 categories. The last one was if a vet makes over x amount and has x amount of assets they were placed in Cat 7, cat 7 could be denied and/or forced to pay for their care. I retired in 2010, so some changes could be made. At the time though, the 7 categories were created so care could be denied to lower categories in the future.

Granted, this was a VA and would be different than a Medicare for All facility, with the Vets receiving the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, the general public would not receive as good of care as the Vets, and if you have seen the news the last few years, the VA has had lots of issues with patients getting care. America’s vets would certainly get priority over the average citizen, go for Medicare for all at your own peril.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Ok..I’m listening. How is treatment regulated and how are certain ages and diagnoses denied treatment versus private plans?

My agency (VA) at the time I was there, and I hate to admit this, was best run during the Clinton administration. Vets were assigned Primary Care and was run like a private facility. All vets were granted full benefits (dental excepted).

Since then, vets are categorized. Those with service related disabilities are given priority, then others like POWs were next, and so on. There are 7 categories. The last one was if a vet makes over x amount and has x amount of assets they were placed in Cat 7, cat 7 could be denied and/or forced to pay for their care. I retired in 2010, so some changes could be made. At the time though, the 7 categories were created so care could be denied to lower categories in the future.

Granted, this was a VA and would be different than a Medicare for All facility, with the Vets receiving the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, the general public would not receive as good of care as the Vets, and if you have seen the news the last few years, the VA has had lots of issues with patients getting care. America’s vets would certainly get priority over the average citizen, go for Medicare for all at your own peril.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

that's me, lucky #7.

Now I get shorted just because we had diplomats back in the day.

[kalm]

More socialism...

Over the sweep of history, the main reason that societies have declined, as the scholars Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson have written, is domination “by a narrow elite that have organized society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people.” The name of Acemoglu’s and Robinson’s book on this phenomenon is, “Why Nations Fail.”

It’s worth keeping all of this in mind when you hear critics (or journalists) describe the economic proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates as “radical.” They’re not radical, for the most part. The proposals are instead efforts to undo some of the extreme economic changes of recent decades and to ensure that most Americans workers — not just a narrow elite — fully benefit from economic growth.

The proposals also happen to be popular, broadly speaking. On social issues, like abortion and immigration, the country is deeply divided. But clear majorities support higher taxes on the wealthy, higher taxes on corporations, more education funding and expanded government health insurance. No wonder: Americans don’t resent success, but they do resent not receiving their fair share of economic growth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/opin ... h-tax.html