It would “boost” spending. Wouldn’t that double it?
I didn’t come up with it, I quoted it.
Yeah, I messed up the quote function.
It wouldn’t be anything like 65 percent. There is way more than enough money being spent on health insurance right now to fund the entire thing. Do you spend 65 percent of your income on health insurance?
But everyone is not covered now, right? And many people have high deductibles and simply don’t see a doctor for every little thing because of cost. Wouldn’t everyone in the country being covered cause that cost to balloon?
I can’t speak for him, but I spend 12%, no deductible. Yeah, 65% was a stretch trying to make a point.
Based on current and projected spending on healthcare in the US, the medicare for all plan would REDUCE national expenditures for healthcare over the 10 year period. We are only arguing over who is writing the check… With some courage in congress, we could probably reduce the total expenditures even more over 10 years.
That’s the funny thing that most try to avoid in these arguments… We have to slow or halt the explosion in healthcare spending regardless of who pays… It’s a spending bubble with devastating consequences for everyone but the most wealthy. Imagine 10 years from now seeing you health insurance premium triple todays cost. How does that effect employers hiring? How does it effect consumer spending? What about entrepreneurs? One the biggest hurdles for the guy in a garage starting the next big thing is health coverage…
One only has to look at the VA for a preview. And the cost would be prohibitive.
Unlikely. First, medicare has lower administrative costs versus private insurance, roughly 2-5% versus 18-25%. Secondly, if everyone was insured they’d have access to cost effective primary care options rather than using more expensive emergency rooms. Preventative medicine could hopefully treat conditions before they become much more expensive.
^Doesnt know the difference between government run healthcare and government run health insurance.
Exactly… the amount of ignorance on this topic is scary…
Sorry, accidentally deleted my last reply…
Currently the US government spends about $1 trillion per year on healthcare programs. So, yes, it would increase the amount the government spends, but per capital spending would be similar.
Correct AND with near 100% coverage unlike today…
Besides, I have Tricare for Life and haven’t had any problems in the 3 locations I’ve lived since I retired from the Army.
Of course you do know that there are those that argue differently, right? It’s not hard to find. What’s hard is who to believe.
I was going to mention that those who have it appear to be quite satisfied, but I don’t have anything but antidotes to back it up.
Well sure I do. I was pointing to “Government run”; “single payer”. The VA is a classic example of what happens when the Government is in control.
DEMs have been pushing for single payer health care for years and Medicare for all is but the first step.
And again, who will pay?
But why would choose such a stupid example when you have Medicare for those over 65 readily available? Are you advocating we eliminate Medicare? Why not if it’s so horrible?
Got to wonder why those super intelligent LIBs bother with us dumb old conservatives any way.
Are you a medicare recipient? Will you refuse medicare when you are old enough and instead rely on private health insurance?
