Medicare-For-All is now polling at 70% for all Americans, 52% for Republicans

You have no freaken idea about what you are talking!

I’ll let Bernadette Lancelin Explain it to you.

Why do you want to put American citizens in the back of the bus and illegal entrants in the front when it comes to their health-care?

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’, Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

You want govt services you have to pay for them.

It’s very telling why socialists love to distribute free government cheese, but not the work which produces the free cheese which they confiscate from those who have produced it.

JWK

The Democrat Leaders promise for free cheese doesn’t work in Cuba, doesn’t work in Venezuela ___ it only works for corrupted politicians who confiscate and then redistribute “free cheese” in order to buy votes and remain in power.

So you want to leech from the govt.

Just for clarity, currently medicare does not pay 99% of health-care costs.

They pay 80% of rates they establish and the individual is responsible for the other 20% plus any over rate amount.

So if the medicare rate for an item is $1000, and the doctor charges $1000, then medicare pays $800 and the person pays $200.

If the medicare rate for an item is $1000, and the doctor charges $1500, then medicare pays $800 and the person pays $700.

.>>>>

Excellent! That is fantastic. I think there should be Medicare for all 70% of those willing to enroll. They can pay for it themselves and solely reap the benefits of their higher tax burden. Why do they need the remaining 30%? Just do it.

Because that’s the way it works.

It doesn’t have to, right? Have the federal government set it up and let those that wish to join enroll. If it’s a success more and more people will join.

Nope it has to to work.

I’m not trying to be a wise ass here. But can you tell me why when we’re talking about 70%? Why do you need 100% participation when those that do not enroll wouldn’t reap the benefits? What exactly is the problem?

I see two possibilities here. The first is that it wouldn’t end up being as good as described and people would bail out. The second would be the lack of funds since many of those that would not enroll is where you expect most of the funding to come from. Maybe a combination of both? But those are the two. Were you thinking of something else?

Funding…

Trying to make America Argentina…

Aah, number 2. If I only had this much money I could do X. Not going to happen, but nice try.

Yep its gonna happen.

  • Obama goal. More Americans covered by insurance.
  • Trump goal. Make more money.

They’re the same.

1 Like
  1. It won’t be a little more.
  2. The government will never lower the deficit.
  3. Future generations are ■■■■■■■

Both Clinton and Obama lowered the deficit. It can be done. We just need to stop electing politicians from the party who advocates for decreased taxation while also advocates for increases in spending.

In all honesty I have mixed feelings on universal health care, which it sounds like has been named “Medicare for All.” Sometimes when access goes up, quality goes down.

Look at a few yelp reviews of USAA. One was specific to customer service as well as other aspects of USAA declining with the inclusion of more vets as it was originally strictly for officers & their families.

OTOH, how much worse could it be than having large scale medical debt from the crap private health plans with absurdly high deductibles many of us now have?

Big ■■■■■■■ deal. The more than 16% of our national debt came from 'bama. He’s in 2nd place for increasing debt. BJ is in 4th place

Could be the strategy. Destroy the health care system until a system run by our inept government looks good by comparison.

1 Like