General Discussion

Nanjeanne

(6,585 posts)

48. I don't believe I ever said it was going to be a cheap panacea so not sure why you

Mon Aug 20, 2018, 08:34 PM

Aug 2018

even say something so silly. I responded to someone on what Medicare costs seniors. I never said it’s the cost of Medicare For All. All I’ve ever contended is that Medicare For All will cost Americans less and more people will be covered with better care. It’s true in every case. And we’d have country after country to look to.

Are you asking me what I think Medicare the program costs the government each year as an overall program? I would have to research that. If you are asking how much my particular true cost is that’s stupid. My care is completely different than my husbands based on our health. If you are asking what the cost of the program is overall for seniors divided by the number of seniors who participate, again irrelevant for the purpose of Medicare For All because right now Medicare is given to people 65 and over and by nature of age, going to be more costly to cover than an average 30 year old. But if you want me to give you the cost of the overall program, I’ll have to get back to you after researching actual government figures.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question about Medicare 4 all, how would it cost more than the current system? [View all] Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 OP

It won't. Tiggeroshii Aug 2018 #1

:) It won't be less expensive because it will provide Hortensis Aug 2018 #15

According the koch funded study, it will actually be less expensive than Tiggeroshii Aug 2018 #42

The Kochs are implacably opposed to all government programs, Hortensis Aug 2018 #44

It clearly wasnt intentional Tiggeroshii Aug 2018 #46

Then why won't you accept all the points that the study makes? dansolo Aug 2018 #62

? Tiggeroshii Aug 2018 #70

How did 2 trillion become 20 trillion? dansolo Aug 2018 #61

Wait, wait, ME FIRST Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #2

It could be an issue to get elected on. That's a reason. It could be a way of taking control of the JCanete Aug 2018 #5

+1 It's a very sellable issue. Look at the polling on it. lagomorph777 Aug 2018 #20

I would prefer we shifted the overton window on this issue so that it is within the realm of... Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #6

So your answer is yes, risk continued power by nazi's and fascists to achieve the unachievable. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #7

Is advocating for Medicare 4 all going to cost even 1 vote? n/t Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #9

Isnt what is happening, what is happening is positioned democrats who WILL win their Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #10

It can just as easily inspire voters to come out. theaocp Aug 2018 #12

OK, we will hold you to that, if the Dems dont take back both the house and senate, you can Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #14

I gave you a reasonable alternative and that's your response? theaocp Aug 2018 #30

Reasonable alternative to WHAT? WHAT are you TALKING about? Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #37

Why is that the path of least resistance? Being uninspiring is the path of least resistance? JCanete Aug 2018 #60

What seats are at risk because of this advocacy, and moreover, when will ever be the right time? n/t Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #16

This is madness. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #17

What is madness, advocating for positive policy changes? n/t Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #21

Somehow it's never the right time. Voltaire2 Aug 2018 #18

Madness, or. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #22

Cowardice. tonedevil Aug 2018 #58

i was trying to discuss the fascist threat very indirectly above. Hortensis Aug 2018 #49

So one can only pursue one goal, guillaumeb Aug 2018 #52

Very soon this will all be moot. Either the same "approach" that got us rump in the Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #71

Medicare isn't sufficient. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #3

Both the house and senate bills, every session Voltaire2 Aug 2018 #19

Um - not true re first paragraph. And re 2nd - Medicare For All is already better than regular Nanjeanne Aug 2018 #31

Perhaps instead of a national insurance plan for everybody, why not a ... SWBTATTReg Aug 2018 #4

Thats basically what many states had pre-ACA. It was a bad idea then and a bad idea now. n/t Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #8

Part of the point of it would be to provide coverage for the vast number of people who Squinch Aug 2018 #11

My question isn't will the costs rise, will my taxes increase by 340 dollars a month... Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #23

It would cover tens of millions more people. NCTraveler Aug 2018 #13

We all paid into Medicare during our working lives. That pays for hospital stays. wasupaloopa Aug 2018 #24

We would continue to do so, my question is would the additional cost for adding everyone... Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #25

I don't think any of us knows for sure. wasupaloopa Aug 2018 #28

Even that seems like a bargain for me, when I use my insurance, it costs a pretty penny... Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #33

Nobody here can point to a study that answers that question. wasupaloopa Aug 2018 #26

Koch brothers actually released one that answered that question Tiggeroshii Aug 2018 #40

Why don't you post a link to the actual study itself? dansolo Aug 2018 #63

While it is something we need to do, Medicare for all will not be a lot Hoyt Aug 2018 #27

My Medicare plus my pretty inclusive "N" supplement costs me less than $300/month. I'd say that's Nanjeanne Aug 2018 #32

Well, you have to add in what you and others have paid into the system for 40 years. Hoyt Aug 2018 #35

This MichMan Aug 2018 #38

Exactly. I think we have to bite the bullet and do it, but anyone Hoyt Aug 2018 #47

No I don't. If people are paying in during their working time in taxes, it's still taxes. Nanjeanne Aug 2018 #39

I'm not arguing against it. But it ain't going to be the cheap panacea you believe. Hoyt Aug 2018 #45

I don't believe I ever said it was going to be a cheap panacea so not sure why you Nanjeanne Aug 2018 #48

You have to consider the cost of Medicare now, plus the cost of Hoyt Aug 2018 #51

You have to consider how much we spend on healthcare in this country of all the Nanjeanne Aug 2018 #55

Naive is thinking that Medicare for All will produce significant savings, especially picking up Hoyt Aug 2018 #57

Ok you win. Every country that produces better results for less money and more people Nanjeanne Aug 2018 #64

Not trying to win. Unfortunately, our health system is not structured like every other country, to Hoyt Aug 2018 #67

"Medicare for All" is actually misleading, but great marketing. ehrnst Aug 2018 #69

I would say a gradual buy in program would lead to less "sticker shock"... Humanist_Activist Aug 2018 #34

Something like that. I do think a voluntary program will be easier to enact. Hoyt Aug 2018 #36

The cost "savings" assumes everybody is enrolled in 4 years dansolo Aug 2018 #65

I doubt it will pass like that, although I'd be fine with it. Joe the Plumber will go berserk, Hoyt Aug 2018 #66

First, we need more providers ismnotwasm Aug 2018 #29

+1. Always laugh when people think Medicare-for-All will cut out tons of administrative costs. Hoyt Aug 2018 #68

It would all but certainly not be more expensive dsc Aug 2018 #41

Just got kicked from Medicaid to Medicare... backtoblue Aug 2018 #43

It won't. Also employers will pay less for Healthcare with Medicare for All KWR65 Aug 2018 #50

All those countries finance it with a VAT among other revenues MichMan Aug 2018 #53

We wouldn't need a VAT. KWR65 Aug 2018 #54

It won't, but it will redistribute the costs DeminPennswoods Aug 2018 #56

PNHP area51 Aug 2018 #59