Nationalization and Socialist ideology

[Legion]

Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing.

The program would be funded by combining current sources of public funding (such as Medicare and Medicaid) with new taxes based on ability to pay.



http://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/

 

[kudzu]

Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing.

The program would be funded by combining current sources of public funding (such as Medicare and Medicaid) with new taxes based on ability to pay.



http://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/

Socialism would mean the government owned the hospitals and employed the doctors and staff.

Medicare is single payer-private delivery. Its not socialism.

Start by learning what "socialism" is and isn't.

 

[Legion]

Socialism would mean the government owned the hospitals and employed the doctors and staff. Medicare is single payer-private delivery. Its not socialism. Start by learning what "socialism" is and isn't.

I've seen how creeping Socialism starts, fake Saudi princess.

Like Obamacare, which I suspect was designed to fail so that "single-payer" AKA "Medicare for all" would seem palatable, I believe "Medicare for all" is also designed to fail so that nationalization can be implemented to solve the ensuing manufactured "crisis".

One look at the backers is enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All_Caucus

 

[kudzu]

I've seen how creeping Socialism starts, fake Saudi princess.

Like Obamacare, which I suspect was designed to fail so that "single-payer" AKA "Medicare for all" would seem palatable, I believe "Medicare for all" is also designed to fail so that nationalization can be implemented to solve the ensuing manufactured "crisis".

One look at the backers is enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All_Caucus

Your "beliefs" are based on ignorance. Trump called himself a nationalist. Private delivery is NOT socialism.

 

[Legion]

Your "beliefs" are based on ignorance. Trump called himself a nationalist. Private delivery is NOT socialism.

You're a convicted fraudster with zero credibility who has been confined to a mental institution, fake Saudi princess. Why would I give any credence to a mentally ill proven thief and habitual liar like you?

BTW, there's a difference between "nationalism" and "nationalization".

 

[Legion]

Remember when some people warned that Obamacare was designed to fail so radical leftists could push "single payer" as a "solution" to the ensuing "crisis?"


That was called fearmongering by liars like krudzu.

Obamacare failed. Sure enough, DEMOCRATS are now pushing "Medicare for All" as the "solution" to the "crisis".

It, too, is designed to fail, IMO, as the precursor to the nationalization of a huge portion of the US economy.

 

[jimmymccready]

Social Nationalism is the root cause of the far right and the Alt Right.

 

[Legion]

Social Nationalism is the root cause of the far right and the Alt Right.

McThink McSo? At any rate, that's not the McSubject of this McThread.

 

[Legion]

What would "Medicare for All" do? Here are the facts, based on the bills in the House and Senate.

First, it would outlaw all employer-provided plans, individually purchased insurance, every single union plan. It also means an end to the increasingly popular private Medicare Advantage insurance plans.

"Medicare for All" would have the government pay all medical costs. There'd be no copays or deductibles on anything, from doctor visits, surgery and drugs to long-term care, dental and vision. The only thing not covered would be cosmetic surgery.

Keep in mind that no other country in the world does that.

Even in "socialistic" countries like Sweden and Denmark, people pay 14% to 15% of health costs out of pocket.

Canada doesn't cover prescription drugs, and private insurance picks up 13% of health bills.

Even in China, people buy private insurance to cover copays and deductibles, and the Chinese pay almost a third of health costs out of pocket.

DEMOCRATS are rushing to endorse a plan that is more radical and expensive than Communist China's'.



https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/medicare-for-all-midterm-elections/

 

[kudzu]

What would "Medicare for All" do? Here are the facts, based on the bills in the House and Senate.

First, it would outlaw all employer-provided plans, individually purchased insurance, every single union plan. It also means an end to the increasingly popular private Medicare Advantage insurance plans.

"Medicare for All" would have the government pay all medical costs. There'd be no copays or deductibles on anything, from doctor visits, surgery and drugs to long-term care, dental and vision. The only thing not covered would be cosmetic surgery.

Keep in mind that no other country in the world does that.

Even in "socialistic" countries like Sweden and Denmark, people pay 14% to 15% of health costs out of pocket.

Canada doesn't cover prescription drugs, and private insurance picks up 13% of health bills.

Even in China, people buy private insurance to cover copays and deductibles, and the Chinese pay almost a third of health costs out of pocket.

DEMOCRATS are rushing to endorse a plan that is more radical and expensive than Communist China's'.



https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/medicare-for-all-midterm-elections/

Sweden is not socialist -- because the government doesn't own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea.

 

[Legion]

Sweden is not socialist -- because the government doesn't own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea.

That's why I didn't say that Sweden is socialist, fake Saudi princess.

Any more irrelevant asides, fraudster?

 

[kudzu]

You're a convicted fraudster with zero credibility who has been confined to a mental institution, fake Saudi princess. Why would I give any credence to a mentally ill proven thief and habitual liar like you?

BTW, there's a difference between "nationalism" and "nationalization".

Of course there is a difference between nationalism and nationalization.. but you don't know the difference between nationalism and patriotism.

 

[Legion]

Of course there is a difference between nationalism and nationalization.. but you don't know the difference between nationalism and patriotism.

So you say, fraudster. You also said that you were a Saudi princess, and claimed that "gas is $5 @ gallon in NYC".

That means you aren't credible.

 

[Legion]

"Medicare for all" would very likely double the size of the federal government.

Analysis of Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan found that it could cost $32.6 trillion initially, which may be an underestimate.

 

[Legion]

Sanders' plan starts with an 8.4% hike in payroll taxes, sharply higher income taxes and more, none of which is likely cover the exorbitant costs.

 

[StoneByStone]

I've seen how creeping Socialism starts, fake Saudi princess.

Like Obamacare, which I suspect was designed to fail so that "single-payer" AKA "Medicare for all" would seem palatable, I believe "Medicare for all" is also designed to fail so that nationalization can be implemented to solve the ensuing manufactured "crisis".

One look at the backers is enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All_Caucus

Fucking Obama. His program was supposed to fail, and it ended up succeeding! What a loser.

 

[Legion]

For three years running, the uninsured rate has remained unchanged, government data show. That means, despite massive taxpayer costs, ObamaCare is tapped out.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the overall uninsured rate last year was 9.1%, the same as it was in 2015.

If you take out retirees, who are automatically covered by Medicare, the uninsured rate was 10.7% last year, up a fraction from 10.5% in 2015.

The uninsured rate for the near poor hasn't budged in three years. And it's climbed for those characterized by the CDC as "not poor." It went from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.2% in 2017.

the CDC data also show that, despite all the hoopla over how ObamaCare would "fix" the private insurance market, all the gains in coverage under ObamaCare came from getting more people on Medicaid.

In other words, it was ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion that did all the work of reducing the uninsured rate, not the guaranteed issue rules, benefit mandates, the multibillion dollar ObamaCare exchanges, the failed co-op experiments, the insurance bailouts, or the tens of billions of dollars each year premium subsidies.

Here are the numbers:

• CDC data show that the uninsured rate among those under age 65 declined from 16.4% in 2007 to 12.4% in 2017.
• However, over those same years the share covered by private insurance dropped from 66.8% to 65.4%.
• The share with government insurance, meanwhile, shot up from 18.1% to 25.3%.

One very large study found that the health of those on Medicaid wasn't significantly better than those who lacked insurance altogether. Medicaid is in desperate need of reform, and ObamaCare opened the door to this disastrous program to millions more people.

At the same time, ObamaCare failed to "reform" the private insurance market. If anything, it exacerbated the problems. ObamaCare's mandates and regulations forced premiums in the individual insurance market through the roof, pricing many middle-class families out of the insurance market altogether.

ObamaCare's failures are plain for all to see.


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/medicare-for-all-democrats-midterm-elections/

 

[StoneByStone]

Obamacare wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it failed. Americans were better off with it than they were before, when far less people had health insurance.
And no, people on Medicaid weren't just as healthy as people without insurance.
Now I do agree that we have a long way to go to have a good health care system in America, but Obamacare was a step in the right direction.

 

[kudzu]

Obamacare wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it failed. Americans were better off with it than they were before, when far less people had health insurance.
And no, people on Medicaid weren't just as healthy as people without insurance.
Now I do agree that we have a long way to go to have a good health care system in America, but Obamacare was a step in the right direction.

Yes. Obamacare was a step in the right direction. Americans can do this .

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Legion]

Obamacare wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it failed. Americans were better off with it than they were before, when far less people had health insurance.

So you say.