Not initially, because when it was started weren’t the people who were 65 or older qualify based upon age and not how much they paid into the system? Also under a Medicare for all system wouldn’t Medicaid be eliminated?
I don’t know. Name any other government hand out on the history of forever that was ever eliminated.
Eliminated was probably not the best choice of words. I assume the term Medicaid would simply go away but those on it would not loose the entitlement.
To be honest I don’t really get the point you’re trying to make here in regards to my particular response. Let me put it this way. If a Medicare for all system meant increasing taxes on everyone by say 65% of their personal income NO ONE (other than those on welfare) would like it.
fewer Canadians using it
Health insurance premiums would go away, though. Some would see a net gain while others would see a net loss.
Would they? The people in Canada who can afford it still buy health insurance. If the single payor was so great, why still buy insurance?
Some people want more expensive things for a variety of reasons. Why pay $5000 a night for a swanky suite when you can get a nice room for $300 or why pay $500K for an Aventador when you can get a Z06 for under $100K?
so under this single payor system, you would be ok with people who have money being able to use that system and still be able to buy better health care than everyone else?
I don’t care how other people spend their money.
Whenever government takes action on something like healthcare there will almost certainly be winners and losers. The ACA is a perfect example of that. I would venture that under a Medicare for all system some in the middle class would likely pay more, and maybe some would pay less. What is concerning is that government would have that power over us from cradle to grave and could theoretically justify any level of taxation on such an “entitlement.”
The government can theoretically justify any level of taxation already.
65%? Where oh where did you pull that percentage from - your ass?
then don’t force me to find a single payor health care system.
Sorry, your contributing.
The negative is those that have money pay for it, and those that don’t get a free ride. Then with 300 million people being insured we’ll end up having long waiting periods for certain procedures due to prioritizing. Do you think the people that are going to end up paying for this are going to want their already good health insurance compromised for the betterment of all? Good luck with that.
Washington (AP) – Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.
That’s trillion with a “T.”
Of course no one would be for that. I bring home 60% of my income now. Of the 40% missing 12% is on health care. Give me that back and take 65% away I’ll be left with 7%. Surely you jest. Because there would be no point in me going to work.
Total US healthcare expenditures (private and public) is about $3.5 trillion per year. Bernie’s number are pretty much on track with that.
Where do you come up with 65%?
