APP - 58% of Americans support Medicare for All legislation Here it is!

B

Bill Fishlore

New member
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

Only public or nonprofit institutions may participate. Nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities may participate.

Patients may choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Health insurers may not sell health insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under this bill. Insurers may sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

The bill sets forth methods to pay institutional providers and health professionals for services. Financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization are prohibited.

The program is funded: (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care, (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners, (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income, (4) by instituting a tax on unearned income, and (5) by instituting a tax on stock and bond transactions. Amounts that would have been appropriated for federal public health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), are transferred and appropriated to carry out this bill.

The program must give employment transition benefits and first priority in retraining and job placement to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced clerical and administrative work under this bill.

The Department of Health and Human Services must create a confidential electronic patient record system.

The bill establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to provide advice on quality, access, and affordability.

The Indian Health Service must be integrated into the program after five years. Congress must evaluate the continued independence of Department of Veterans Affairs health programs.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Bill Fishlore said:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

Only public or nonprofit institutions may participate. Nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities may participate.

Patients may choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Health insurers may not sell health insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under this bill. Insurers may sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

The bill sets forth methods to pay institutional providers and health professionals for services. Financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization are prohibited.

The program is funded: (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care, (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners, (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income, (4) by instituting a tax on unearned income, and (5) by instituting a tax on stock and bond transactions. Amounts that would have been appropriated for federal public health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), are transferred and appropriated to carry out this bill.

The program must give employment transition benefits and first priority in retraining and job placement to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced clerical and administrative work under this bill.

The Department of Health and Human Services must create a confidential electronic patient record system.

The bill establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to provide advice on quality, access, and affordability.

The Indian Health Service must be integrated into the program after five years. Congress must evaluate the continued independence of Department of Veterans Affairs health programs.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

it is past time for a single payer health care system...i.e., medicare for all
 
Why is there no public debate about the merits of the Ryan healthcare bill and the Sanders healthcare bill? We know that people on both sides care passionately. The amount of money involved in either bill is larger than the Pentagon budget. Experts tell us that the bills contain life-or-death issues for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yet there is total silence broken only by the fact-free yapping of partisan propaganda. What is wrong with our system? Our democracy is slipping away. The Russians are winning the new Info War. Oh, my poor country!
 
Bill Fishlore said:
Why is there no public debate about the merits of the Ryan healthcare bill and the Sanders healthcare bill? We know that people on both sides care passionately. The amount of money involved in either bill is larger than the Pentagon budget. Experts tell us that the bills contain life-or-death issues for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yet there is total silence broken only by the fact-free yapping of partisan propaganda. What is wrong with our system? Our democracy is slipping away. The Russians are winning the new Info War. Oh, my poor country!
Click to expand...

well put, where is debate in our congress
 
Interesting. Allow me to put on my cynics hat, the reasons are simple, money manages ideas and money likes things as they are. Serious debate would never happen, you'd need serious people with serious thoughts. Like that mythological person with lantern in hand you'll have a hard time finding them in places that allow debate. Our so called representatives became representatives because they support certain ideas that conflict with single payer etc. Add American libertarian thought to the mix, and you have lost the argument. Wanna make it happen? Create an ad, lots of ads, and present them to the public in all media bubbles. Do it long enough for the idea to gain possibility. Of course you'd need to finance this change as money ain't gonna do it.

For the reader some help:

"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" Jane Mayer
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein
'One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America' by Kevin M. Kruse
'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman

And more:

'Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding' Steven Green
'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg
'The Making of Donald Trump' by David Cay Johnston
'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
 
They should rename this title to Bankrupt America in 20 Years Act

Why exactly do you think you are entitled to other people's money? Is YOUR health so important that is ok to deprive another of their property?
 
midcan5 said:
Interesting. Allow me to put on my cynics hat, the reasons are simple, money manages ideas and money likes things as they are. Serious debate would never happen, you'd need serious people with serious thoughts. Like that mythological person with lantern in hand you'll have a hard time finding them in places that allow debate. Our so called representatives became representatives because they support certain ideas that conflict with single payer etc. Add American libertarian thought to the mix, and you have lost the argument. Wanna make it happen? Create an ad, lots of ads, and present them to the public in all media bubbles. Do it long enough for the idea to gain possibility. Of course you'd need to finance this change as money ain't gonna do it.

For the reader some help:

"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" Jane Mayer
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein
'One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America' by Kevin M. Kruse
'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman

And more:

'Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding' Steven Green
'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg
'The Making of Donald Trump' by David Cay Johnston
'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
Click to expand...

it needs to be presented as a cost saving measure like the aca

it would cut down on billing costs as medicare billing is already in place (there will be an initial cost for training)

also, like the aca it will cut down on emergency room over utilization

additionally, it will improve the overall health of the nation and help reduce curable communicable diseases
 
Trump and the Democrats

Trump has stated that the GOP plan is dead and it is time to work with Democrats for a new one. Trump's position has always been that he wants everyone covered and covered better at lower cost. The Medicare For All program can meet those objectives and there are a couple of important compromises that would make the new plan acceptable to at least some Republicans.

One is to put the M4A program in the context of the public option, i.e. make it individually available on the exchanges as an individual choice.

The other is to base cost on income. The current Democratic proposal envisions a premium of $400 a month for a family making $100,000 a year. The other revenue streams would feed the necessary subsidies.

Even in this compromise form M4A would save billions in administrative costs. It would wipe out all the coverage gaps and provide much greater benefits. Republicans may shudder at the very idea, but this compromise approach would make Trump a bigger winner than Obama in healthcare and all he would need was a minority of Republican votes as the Democrats will jump on it like a trout on a mayfly.
 
I Love America said:
They should rename this title to Bankrupt America in 20 Years Act

Why exactly do you think you are entitled to other people's money? Is YOUR health so important that is ok to deprive another of their property?
Click to expand...
This ^^^ is an excellent question and one which ought to be the kickoff of public discussion about where we go next on healthcare. Thank you for asking it.

There are two right answers to the question "Is YOUR health so important that is ok to deprive another of their property?" they are: "yes" and "no." As posed, the question asks for the balance between community and property. Where we as a nation draw the line is a matter of individual belief settle by the mechanism of majority rule.

Even the smallest government conservative knows that possession of YOUR money is not absolute, that the government has the power to levy taxes. The big questions are: "how much and for what?"

For example, the government provides kids education even if their parents cannot afford it because such investment is widely considered in the best interest of all of us, i.e. of society or the American nation.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
This ^^^ is an excellent question and one which ought to be the kickoff of public discussion about where we go next on healthcare. Thank you for asking it.

There are two right answers to the question "Is YOUR health so important that is ok to deprive another of their property?" they are: "yes" and "no." As posed, the question asks for the balance between community and property. Where we as a nation draw the line is a matter of individual belief settle by the mechanism of majority rule.

Even the smallest government conservative knows that possession of YOUR money is not absolute, that the government has the power to levy taxes. The big questions are: "how much and for what?"

For example, the government provides kids education even if their parents cannot afford it because such investment is widely considered in the best interest of all of us, i.e. of society or the American nation.
Click to expand...

What limits if any do think there are in the government taking your property? Just a majority vote? Seems arbitrary and volatile if you ask me
 
Bill Fishlore said:
This ^^^ is an excellent question and one which ought to be the kickoff of public discussion about where we go next on healthcare. Thank you for asking it.

There are two right answers to the question "Is YOUR health so important that is ok to deprive another of their property?" they are: "yes" and "no." As posed, the question asks for the balance between community and property. Where we as a nation draw the line is a matter of individual belief settle by the mechanism of majority rule.

Even the smallest government conservative knows that possession of YOUR money is not absolute, that the government has the power to levy taxes. The big questions are: "how much and for what?"

For example, the government provides kids education even if their parents cannot afford it because such investment is widely considered in the best interest of all of us, i.e. of society or the American nation.
Click to expand...

another cost savings is that it would eliminate the profit requirement that most health care providers have. however, there would be an expense as what is paid to doctors would need to be adjusted upwards. in fact all payments for services would need to be reviewed as currently, medicare is already subsidized by the health care industry and its users.
 
Don Quixote said:
another cost savings is that it would eliminate the profit requirement that most health care providers have. however, there would be an expense as what is paid to doctors would need to be adjusted upwards. in fact all payments for services would need to be reviewed as currently, medicare is already subsidized by the health care industry and its users.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is astounding

Under an NHS like system your plug would have been pulled a while ago.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
The process is called eminent domain. Legal specifics vary from state to state as well in federal law. Like life and liberty, the right to property is not absolute. No right is absolute under our Constitution. Didn't they teach you about this in Civics?

for reference: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/eminent+domain
Click to expand...

Did I say any right was absolute? Don't argue against points that aren't being made it doesn't make you look smart

I asked you what limits you think there should be. That isn't hard to answer is it?
 
No right exists outside of government, no justice exists outside of government, without government life becomes anarchy. This is so simple and yet most people think this world exists as it does because of some magic gravity that keeps order. And our representative check and balance form of government works best. Our first president knew this and while it may not work perfectly you only need to look at other nations to see the consequences of a weak or absent government. We waste money on useless defense and we cannot take care of each other - that is a moral dilemma and one that only gov can address. We can pretend our earnings are ours and yet nothing we earn exists outside the framework of society and government. Go be Robinson Crusoe and tell us about it someday. Oh and don't get sick, injured, cold, or hungry.

"Poor countries are poor not because they lack resources, but because they lack effective political institutions." Francis Fukuyama

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address


"For decades conservatives have been demonizing government and not enough has been done to defend it. Ever since Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem," Republicans have been waging a political war against this institution. They have been joined in this anti-government crusade by libertarian thinkers, Tea Party activists, right-wing media pundits, and wealthy corporate lobbies. This powerful political coalition blithely ignores anything good about government and conducts a relentless smear campaign against this institution. They constantly play upon the fears and insecurities of average Americans and encourage them to blame all their problems on big bad government." http://www.governmentisgood.com/
 
Eminent domain

Your question "What limits if any do think there are in the government taking your property? Just a majority vote? Seems arbitrary and volatile if you ask me" was about limits in the procedure (majority vote). Those are defined in the relevant legislation. There is no limit on the property. Most legislation specifies just compensation. I don't need to look smart, I am smart.
 
I Love America said:
They should rename this title to Bankrupt America in 20 Years Act

Why exactly do you think you are entitled to other people's money? Is YOUR health so important that is ok to deprive another of their property?
Click to expand...

Another self absorbed GOP supporter thinks belongings are more important than human life.
 
Cypress said:
Feel free to move to a country that won't tax you.



Click to expand...

That is your best retort? Who said anything about paying NO taxes? I merely asked what limits you would place on gobblement to confiscate another's property and it would appear that you lefties have no limits.

You lefties have complete 100% faith in gobblement so you apparently will hail Trump because he is after all the gobblement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top