Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday that "Medicare for All" will not move in the Senate as long as Republicans control the chamber.
"Not as long as I'm majority leader. It ought to be Medicare for none. …
So, if Mitch had his way, no one would be receiving Medicare. I think he just gave Democrats a juicy soundbite. They ought to field a dynamic candidate to take him on in 2020.
Rather a foolish statement, yes, as medicare has been paid for by the recipients.
At the same time, terminology and semantics is raising it's head here - the Democrats have proposed "medicare for all" when what they actually mean is "health care for all, paid for by the tax base". Not sure why they chose that terminology, except perhaps to imply that some get "free" health care (that they've paid for for decades and finally get to collect) so all should, whether they paid for it or not. At it's roots it's called "spin" - an effort to divert attention from what is being said and to raise emotions that should be exist.
I think he just gave Democrats a juicy soundbite.
The Dems should be focusing on healthcare. I mean, yes, the Mueller report is important. But what if Trump, for whatever reason, isn't the candidate in 2020?
That's an issue that's been a disaster for Trump and the GOP. Still till this day they have no plan.
Only one or two congressmen asked Barr about that and they killed him. It was a disaster for the admin. But the Dems didn't capitalized it.
I think you're right - the people have decided that "free" health care really is available, that there is no cost to be paid for it, and they want it.
They will continue to demand it, (along with a little help from the liberals of the country) until they get it...whereupon the actual cost of that "free" care will rapidly chip away at the health care they can get for "free" until it is nearly gone.
We see it happening everywhere that glorious free care for everyone takes place; it goes downhill while the bewildered people ask "What happened? It was all FREE!". TAANSTAAFL
I think that the Democratic candidates will focus on health care. It is a win for them.
As far as the way the Democrats handled Barr, I agree, they could have done much better.
I think you're right - Democrats will focus on free health care. And I think you're right it will be a win for them - they have convinced a gullible public that there is sufficient funding to give virtually unlimited health care to everyone, paid for from the tax base.
The bigger question will become who will charged with the failure when those same people find out they've been lied to?
A Trump supporter worried about being lied to.
How about a non-challenging question Prettypanther?
They, (the Democrat candidates), seem to be lining up behind Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan. Do you see that as appealing to Middle America's voters, (aka the moderates, centrists, and Independents)?
I don't, but I am open to a discussion about it.
I think the "Medicare for All" bandwagon is in its infancy and support will depend on how it is proposed to be funded. I think he devil is in the details for moderates and independents.
But, I hope that, when presented with a choice between 1) a party that screamed "repeal and replace" for 8 years then did nothing, and has zero ideas for helping Americans with affordable health care, and 2) a party that has shown they will act on health care and will continue to work to improve it for all Americans, people will choose the doers over the do-nothing screamers.
Last, even if a Medicare for All candidate is elected, the plan will have to be approved by Congress, so I expect it will probably not be a true Medicare for All plan but maybe a stepping stone toward it.
Polls consistently show the answer is yes.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll – March 2018
This month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds six in ten (59 percent) favor a national health plan, or Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan – including a majority of both Democrats and independents and about one-third of Republicans. Support for such a proposal increases among the overall public (75 percent) and among partisans (87 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans) when framed as an option for anyone who wants it, but people who currently have other forms of coverage can keep the coverage they already have.
74 percent, including nearly half of Republicans (47%), favor a national government plan like Medicare that is open to anyone, but also would allow people to keep the coverage they have if they want to; and
56 percent, including nearly a quarter of Republicans (23%), favor a national plan called Medicare-for-all in which all Americans would get their insurance through a single government plan.
(I think many on the right know that. Wilderness is an example. I guess that's why the need to insult the people who do.)
Those poll results surprise me Islandbites. I do think that as a nation we are on the road to some type of national healthcare - once Obamcare opened the door it could never be completely closed again, but I am a bit surprised by the spread of those support numbers.
I have a definite opinion of Medicare For All but will wait for more details before deciding if it is a validly supportable or ideological opinion.
Yes. I was surprised too. But only because people admitted their support. I do believe that if partisanship was removed from the equation (meaning "I won't support whatever you propose only because you're the other side) the numbers would be higher.
I think I'm going to side with Wildnerness here.
It's a noble goal to want to make sure our fellow beings are cared for, but people who propose "healthcare for all" rarely have a way to pay for it. I think it's reasonable to ask how we will pay for it because there's no doubt it will be expensive.
Really, what we should be focused on is affordable health care. How do we make it affordable?
One way, is to reward those who are healthy and penalize those who are not. You should pay less for your healthcare if you take care of yourself. To be more candid, we're an overweight nation. Those who are fat should pay more for their healthcare. Those who smoke should pay a lot more. Those who drink should pay more. Certainly you "pay" when these habits send you to the hospital or whatever, but those of us who are healthy shouldn't be subsidizing people who choose to eat too much or not exercise or smoke cigarettes.
And I'll say this just for effect, parents who don't vaccinate their children shouldn't be covered at all.
Anyway, the goal is fine, but I want to see the math.
Yes, I want to see the math, too.
As for your proposal to reward healthier people, I can't get on board for that. There is no way to accurately monitor what people really eat or how much they exercise so how would you determine who is leading a healthy lifestyle? Someone who isn't overweight may or may not eat healthy and exercise.
Then how do we motivate people to lead healthier lives when the cost of not leading a healthier life would massively drive up costs of free health insurance? Perhaps we should provide more carrot and less stick. Give pricing incentives for proving your healthy, not monitoring those who are unhealthy.
That's all fine and good, to incentivise a healthy lifestyle, buy how does that make health care more affordable for the 99% of us that smoke OR are overweight OR don't get enough sleep OR don't eat healthy (is vegan required?) OR don't exercise enough OR participate in action sports OR OR OR?
None of us live a healthy life in all regards, so all of us will lose the incentive. And health care remains expensive, then, for the vast majority.
It doesn't, unless you live a healthier life. I'm just saying, everyone says we have an obesity problem in this country. I'd rather not pay higher premiums for other people to stuff themselves.
My employer, for example, gives me $25/month for exercising for 14 days, defined as two 15-minute intervals or one 30-minute interval.
The other way to lower it is to remove the profit-motive from health care.
"The other way to lower it is to remove the profit-motive from health care."
That is an interesting statement, considering that Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan would essentially eliminate all private healthcare insurances - except for those that offer cosmetic surgery. An entire industry abolished and over half a million jobs wiped out.
"Blue Cross/Blue Shield would essentially be only for nose jobs."
Well, healthcare is effectively socialism in many countries, like policing or the fire department.
That is your argument? Because that is the way other countries do it?
I am not making an argument so much as stating a fact. Police and fire departments don’t make profit. Perhaps hospitals shouldn’t either? Why do we view one as necessary for the public good and not the other?
Your question implies that hospitals provide a public service in the same sense as police or fire departments.
It's a matter of choices Crankilicious. Some hospitals are non-profit, just as there are also for-profit fire and security services.
If your logic regarding hospitals is because they provide a public service, then does it extend to private doctor's clinics or their offices?
"Really, what we should be focused on is affordable health care. How do we make it affordable?"
There are ways.
We can eliminate or vastly reduce malpractice claims
We can eliminate private rooms in hospitals
We can reduce the "niceties" in hospitals, such as chapels, room TV's, constant updates to waiting family members, etc. There is room for a great many savings here.
We can eliminate any non-necessary treatments. Plastic surgery (outside of injuries) comes to mind.
We can put 24 hour clinics alongside ER's, with immediate triage - does the patient NEED an ER or will a clinic with a PA do the job?
For non-emergence treatment, we can increase wait times. We currently enjoy almost immediate tests and treatment, when it would not harm to wait a month. This would mean a large reduction in testing equipment and facilities - the short lead time for immediate testing requires lots of idle equipment and people.
We can stop extraordinary care - a 3 month preemie will not survive and neither will those very badly injured or sick, but it will save lots of cash.
But none of these are palatable to the American public. And, believing they don't cost much, they will continue to demand them. Other countries are finding they have to cut back on some or all of these things (and are complaining loudly) but Americans will not tolerate any of them.
Is plastic surgery covered under insurance? I don't think so.
How do you reduce malpractice claims? Why do you automatically side with the doctors over the patients who may have been harmed? Why do the doctors have a right to make mistakes that could cost patients their health, but the patients don't have the right to claim damages (btw, I basically agree with this point to a degree because I think a doctor, who's just trying to do his job, is probably acting with the best interest of the patient most of the time, so a mistake shouldn't automatically be a lawsuit. There should probably be a board of some sort to evaluate things that are egregious).
Sure, premature babies who won't make it should not be artificially kept alive, but boy, seems like you're going down an interesting path. Legalizing euthanasia would reduce insurance costs, right? How do we decide when not to keep an old person alive any longer?
Again, if we encourage and provide incentives for healthy behavior, we will lower costs.
I think I have found another 'Purple' Crankalicious. Damn, this is starting to feel almost like a club - which worries me, because any club that would have me as a member isn't a club I would want to join. ;-)
by lovetherain 18 months ago
Can the United States afford to have free health care for all? Why or why not?
by Susie Lehto 4 years ago
"This is the closest that we have come to repealing Obamacare."I am over joyed at the moment! I confuse that I thought Speaker of the House Ryan was another Republican Rhino like John Boehner. The Repeal is going to the presidents desk. Obama will veto the bill most...
by scoop 6 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by Judy Specht 3 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
by Dr Billy Kidd 7 years ago
For me, U.S. House majority leader Eric Cantor made the best lie on Morning Joe (6/29/2012). Cantor said that the law takes away your healthcare policy and replaces it with one dictated by Washington. NBC’s Tom Brokaw immediately challenged that. Brokaw said that the law states that you can keep...
by ngureco 7 years ago
Why Can’t A Large Economy Like US Provide “Free” Health Care As It Is In UK And Canada?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|