Medicare for All

[dairygirl4u2c]

how is it possible to be against this plan?

 

This is Bernie Sanders’s universal healthcare plan for every American

Despite spending twice as much on healthcare than most wealthy countries, Americans have a lower life expectancy than their counterparts in the West. Bernie Sanders is keen to change that.

The US Democratic presidential candidate unveiled his universal healthcare plan a couple of hours before the last Democratic debate last night (Jan. 17). Sanders praised Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act but he noted there are still 29 million Americans without health insurance. He calls for a system “that works not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for all of us.” So what is his alternative?

• Sanders wants to create a federally administered single-payer healthcare program—already used in a number of countries such as Canada—where the government insures everyone for their healthcare needs and pays the bills through taxes. The US already has a single-payer system, called Medicare, which has been in place since 1966 and takes care of Americans over 65.
• Universal healthcare would be funded through taxes—and would no longer be optional. US citizens would pay a 2.2% income-based premium towards their healthcare, while employers would pay an additional 6.2% of what it pays employees towards the plan.
• Further progressive and wealth taxes—such as paying between 37% on income above $250,000 and 52% on income above $10 million, various capital-gains taxes, ended tax exemptions, and inheritance taxes—would fund the scheme, which costs $1.38 trillion per year.
• Last year, the “average working family” paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health-insurance companies, the Sanders campaign said. Under his plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay $466 per year into the single-payer system.
• Sanders claims the plan will result in an overall savings of $6 trillion over the next 10 years, when compared to the current system.

Currently, the US spends about $8,713 per person on healthcare, more than twice the OECD average of $3,453. A number of countries, including Norway, Greece, and Japan, spend less than the US on healthcare but have a life expectancy that is just as long or longer:

Hillary Clinton, who is currently leading the Democratic race nationwide, says the party should focus on improving Obamacare and warned that any plan to move away from the act risks sparking a “contentious debate” within the Democrats. Sanders dismisses this criticism, insisting that his plan will improve the current system and that the government can “finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively.”

“Universal healthcare is an idea that has been supported in the United States by Democratic presidents going back to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman,” Sanders wrote. “It is time for our country to join every other major industrialized nation on earth and guarantee healthcare to all citizens as a right, not a privilege.”

It is worth bearing in mind that Obama has, in the past, praised such a plan (paywall) but noted how contentious such a system would be to pass into law.

l

[little2add]

do the math, sweetheart

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

the math was done, as said above, and we'd save six trillion over ten years. that's actually conservative, we could save up to ten trillion in ten years. cause we spend 17 percent of our GDP on healthcare, and all other developed countires with single payer or some variant of it, pay only ten percent. that equals a trillion dollar difference. 

[little2add]

Obamacare claimed to affordable healthcare too

It isn't

[dairygirl4u2c]

single payer has plenty of evidences with other countries, obamacare had nothing to support it. 

[little2add]

Sanders, has been a champion of nationwide government-provided health insurance for everyone, known as single-payer healthcare. 

a plan to enact just such a system in Sanders’s home state of Vermont suffered a major setback in December when Gov. Peter Shumlin (D), who had been a champion of the effort, dropped the proposal, concluding it was not financially feasible. 

(he did the math)

Edited January 19, 2016 by little2add

[dairygirl4u2c]

vermont wasn't doing what it was suppose to to implement single payer, and there was too much political opposition

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

the image i first posted did the math, and i showed irrefutable evidence by comparing costs v GDP. whereas you've done no math, and haven't even tried to rebut the math i've shown. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Bernie Sanders stands for many positions which are diametrically opposed to the Church's moral teachings. For that reason I do not think any Catholic should vote for him, no matter the justification.

That being said, the American healthcare system is utterly and fundamentally broken. It is not clear that single payer systems are the solution, nor is it clear that any one country's particular version of publicly funded healthcare is quantitatively better than any of several others. But it is clear that the American system is useless.

And it bears keeping in mind; the United States spends an enormous amount of public money as a percentage of GDP on health care. So even if your opinion is that a private health system is superior, either ideologically or practically, the United States does not have such a system.

[Benedictus]

The American system is terrible in many respects, especially in terms of cost, coverage issues, access, corporate interest etc. If you can actually access and pay for care then it's fine, but there's plenty of hurdles and problems before that. It's kind of sad that such a great country has such a messed up system, that has gone on for so long due to a failure to accept that something has been so wrong for far too long. Sadly people have suffered and or died as a result of the system, one way or another.

I don't think there's any perfect system but there's plenty of good systems operating around the world that the US could learn from. Lobby groups will fight to discredit anyone who challenges their interests though to keep things the same, or as near as they can get.

[Nihil Obstat]

43 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

The American system is terrible in many respects, especially in terms of cost, coverage issues, access, corporate interest etc. If you can actually access and pay for care then it's fine, but there's plenty of hurdles and problems before that. It's kind of sad that such a great country has such a messed up system, that has gone on for so long due to a failure to accept that something has been so wrong for far too long. Sadly people have suffered and or died as a result of the system, one way or another.

 

Well, it can be adequate with those who, through whatever means, have the ability to pay. Comparing outcomes though, it's still nothing to brag about for those people. People who are truly wealthy can access superior care, but they could do so in many countries, not just the US.

[little2add]

3 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

vermont wasn't doing what it was suppose to to implement single payer, and there was too much political opposition

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

the image i first posted did the math, and i showed irrefutable evidence by comparing costs v GDP. whereas you've done no math, and haven't even tried to rebut the math i've shown. 

it didn't (irrefutable evidence) work. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by little2add

[superblue]

 I should re open one of my old rant on democrats thread I started a few months back if people are going to pay daisys thread this much attention.

 

everyone here should find a day to take a field trip to catholic answers forum and try debating this topic over there, along with other drama that is constantly going on here, and watch how fast each an everyone of us gets banned. cause it is 1000 times worse there in censorship and blowhardedness and self righteousness and cliques there than here.

[Not A Real Name]

If other countries spend less on heathcare and the residents of these countries live longer, couldn't this mean they have a different, if not better, food/nutritional/dietary standards than we do in the US? 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

40 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

If other countries spend less on heathcare and the residents of these countries live longer, couldn't this mean they have a different, if not better, food/nutritional/dietary standards than we do in the US? 

 

It certainly can mean that, yes. I believe Japan and the Mediterranean tend to be considered the best examples of such countries.

[PhuturePriest]

20 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Bernie Sanders stands for many positions which are diametrically opposed to the Church's moral teachings. For that reason I do not think any Catholic should vote for him, no matter the justification.

That being said, the American healthcare system is utterly and fundamentally broken. It is not clear that single payer systems are the solution, nor is it clear that any one country's particular version of publicly funded healthcare is quantitatively better than any of several others. But it is clear that the American system is useless.

And it bears keeping in mind; the United States spends an enormous amount of public money as a percentage of GDP on health care. So even if your opinion is that a private health system is superior, either ideologically or practically, the United States does not have such a system.

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what things he stands for which are diametrically opposed to the Church?

[superblue]

I just love how I can't afford Obama care;

but then again free is never free, it always costs someone, somewhere, something.  An different doesn't mean better, if you are going to go by that logic N.A.R.N; then my standards of living are better than yours because mine are different than yours and thusly you should do what I do. We are not living in a Utopia here, everyone wants free Healthcare, yet those same countries rant and cry about how bad off third world countries are and barely do anything to support those countries. Or do not do enough to stop the war lords who steal those supplies from the people it is supposed to go to. Plus we won't have to worry about healthcare when the oil industry runs us into the ground , or when the cattle industry uses up all the water we need to water and feed the cattle we consume.

[Nihil Obstat]

31 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what things he stands for which are diametrically opposed to the Church?

Abortion would be the elephant in the room. Euthanasia. Gay marriage. The whole contraception issue will surely get worse if he has a say in it. His socialism in and of itself is an issue, as the Church has always condemned socialism as fundamentally incompatible with Catholic social teaching.

You watch as the euthanasia debate really kicks into high gear in Canada. Listen to the rhetoric, see who falls on which side. The writing will be on the wall for the US, because just like gay marriage, sooner or later the debate will come up on a national scale.

[PhuturePriest]

16 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Abortion would be the elephant in the room. Euthanasia. Gay marriage. The whole contraception issue will surely get worse if he has a say in it. His socialism in and of itself is an issue, as the Church has always condemned socialism as fundamentally incompatible with Catholic social teaching.

You watch as the euthanasia debate really kicks into high gear in Canada. Listen to the rhetoric, see who falls on which side. The writing will be on the wall for the US, because just like gay marriage, sooner or later the debate will come up on a national scale.

The thing is, when it comes to social issues, I really don't think at this point it matters who you vote for. None of them care about it and will oppose such laws if they land on their desks. 

When it comes to socialism, Bernie identifies as one, but as far as I'm aware he has never actually advocated for the true definition of socialism, i.e., government or social control over the market. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

It is not primarily that they have better nutrition

 

They regulate health prices and cut out the insurance middleman    . these r cited as the reasons for saving hundreds of billions

[Nihil Obstat]

27 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

The thing is, when it comes to social issues, I really don't think at this point it matters who you vote for. None of them care about it and will oppose such laws if they land on their desks. 

When it comes to socialism, Bernie identifies as one, but as far as I'm aware he has never actually advocated for the true definition of socialism, i.e., government or social control over the market. 

I think you are being force fed the koolaid if you actually think that Sanders' social positions are the same in practice as Rubio, for instance. That is a dangerous deception that will perpetuate the status quo, which is a continuing slide into decadence and hedonism. Bernie Sanders believes in doctrine fit only for swine. Nothing more.

Catholics must stand up after all these years and refuse to continue to relegate Christ the King to a single day of the year commemorated behind closed doors.