Posted on 04/22/2019 5:03:23 PM PDT by david1292
It’s not pretending, but if it was cheaper you wouldn’t pay for it. Want proof? If lasic surgery came down to $29.95 an eye, would you have it done? The problem s there is no competition, no tort reform, no selling insurance across state lines and the government is involved,
I don’t believe in polls.
I don’t believe in elections either - especially the results from large democrat controlled cities.
Actually I made no “assumptions” whatsoever. I stated strictly facts.
When polling is done asking just a basic question....”Do you think Medicare for all is a good idea”....They get these sort of results.
When the ask the same questions with the caveats that the cost will be X amount to fund, the fact that no longer will health insurance be obtainable from outside sources including workplace health insurance etc.etc. and the percentage for it drop precipitously.
And don’t think for a minute that in an election Trump will not harp on this stuff 24/7. When he’s done with them the average Joe will know the score.
I think that our representatives in the Senate and the House lead the way by changing their own benefits to be similar to Medicare for all... (Yep, my answer to almost every liberal agenda, apply it first to themselves...)
I expect Trump to harp on it.
Do I expect a plethora of polls to ask anything other than “Do you think Medicare for all is a good idea”? No I don’t. More something like “The Republicans want to deny health care to everyone who can’t afford it, do you think that’s fair?”
Did you see a bunch of polls in 2016 that asked “if you knew that Hillary had violated federal law and committed espionage, would you still vote for her”?
The average Joe is not going to turn on a TV and see talking heads explaining the complete lack of economic logic behind “Medicare for All”. Nor will he see more than a few polls worded properly as you stated, i.e. logically. And none at all on the MSM.
Medicare for all is just backstory single payer.
Of course you believe this nonsense!
“Sorry...sounds like BS to me.”
Not to me. Exactly how many voters want more benefits from gubmint and how many want less? I’m guessing that the ratio is at least 10:1 even where I live, which is among the most Republican areas I’ve ever seen. One of the few things I ever agreed with pagan Christophobe Neal Boortz was his proclamation that in the aggregate Americans want medical collectivism and they will get it.
The only alternative for sane people will be medical tourism. I fully expect multinational conglomerates to create floating hospital ships anchored 12-1/2 miles out, combined with large scale medical tourism retreats in India, Chile, some Caribbean islands, etc. That and back alley clinics.
Bingo! Most people look to government to satisfy their needs. Sad but true.
The whole problem, succinctly stated, in one clever, incoherent sentence.
The reason the Republicans can't crack this nut, in fact, the reason their party won't exist as a single party by 2024, is that they are divided and unable to be reconciled over the contradiction so ably stated above.
"Ensure people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it" Let's break it down.
Nobody "wants" "healthcare" (whatever that is). I suppose the author of the sentence means "health insurance".
People either need health care (meaning, hospitalization, surgery, medications, doctor visits, Xrays, MRIs, and nursing services), or they don't. WHEN they need it, they want it (or are too sick to know they do), but when they don't need it, they most certainly don't WANT it.
When people NEED hospitalization, surgery, medications, nursing services and all the rest, (and notice how much people don't want to think about that - they invented the euphemism "healthcare" to describe it) - when they need it, "having the ability to purchase it" is absolutely, totally, 100% completely the last thing on their minds. So is organizing society so that it will be available. What is on patient's minds at the point of need is death, or life - disability and disfigurement, or recovery. They do not know, or care, who pays, or how.
So, the Democrats have resolved the philosophical question that comes before the practical problem. They want to ensure that "healthcare" (by which they mean services) is given to all by the government without regard for ability to purchase (pay for) it.
Whether this is right or wrong, smart or stupid, practical or akin to skittles from unicorns is not my point. My point is that they have resolved the contradiction embedded in "lower costs, lower taxes, no mandate, ensure ability to purchase (pay for it) for 100% of the population". The Democrats know what they want, and they are united and determined to have it.
The poor, stupid Republicans, OTOH, are divided about the underlying premise. They really do want health insurance to be cheaper without the lost revenue being made up by taxes, and they want no requirement to have it, BUT they also want "people that want healthcare" (again, whatever that means) to "have the ability to purchase it".
This is incoherent. If hospitals, surgeons, drug manufacturers and nurses do not get paid for their services, they will no longer be available. Many, many people who NEED (and therefore "want") those services cannot pay 1% of what they cost.
"Ensuring that people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it" either means cheap insurance that doesn't cover anything OR nationalization of the resources to deliver care to those who cannot, or will not, pay.
There is no middle ground. The Democrats know what they want. The Republicans don't.
As Sun Tzu said, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
The Republicans do not have a plan because they do not have a philosophy that can support their opposed goals of more freedom for the well and perfect security for the sick.
This is not really any different than what we have now. You can be dead broke, show up at a hospital, and you will get some level of medical care. You, as a well off person pay for this with ten dollar aspirins and insanely inflated list prices for getting a zit popped.
People are not dropping dead in the street.
I’d like to see a system where eveyone pays into 1970’s level medical care. You pay extra for super high tech stuff via cash or additional insurance. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
So, I paid God knows how many thousands of dollars a year for decades and now they want to give the same benefits to everyone?
[The Republicans do not have a plan because they do not have a philosophy that can support their opposed goals of more freedom for the well and perfect security for the sick. ]
I believe this is inevitable.
I also believe more complete, private, quality care should be available for those who can afford it.
There are big problems:
1 - unlimited immigration by those who would bankrupt the system
2 - ridiculously expensive healthcare system in the US
3 - our government is already deeply in debt
4 - Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks on the same a$$, and would do anything to retain power
I wonder what percentage of people who are on Medicare today support Medicare For All. The article mentioned not going bankrupt, but did it discuss premiums, deducts, prescription out of pocket costs, and arbitrary decisions by bureaucrats to change medications regardless of doctor and patient requirements? An informed decision requires information and The ability to process information.
In an age when Democrats can promise utopian benefits at no cost because Uncle Sugar can borrow at will, Republicans have not yet found a way to win elections while preaching that liberty demands responsibility, so they simply drop that half of the equation about responsibility.
I fear we must await a terrible reckoning.
Do a poll asking if people want their taxes doubled...
Then ask if they’d like to wait three weeks to see a doctor.
This is like asking if you’d like to take a month long cruise to Alaska - - - with your whole family - - - forgetting to ask if you’d like to put the $40,000 on your credit card to pay for everyone.
Thankfully not had anything beyond same day stuff in years, but I fell hard last Aug and the EMT’s insisted on the ER as I’m 70, SHOCK, ER’s are WORSE than ever. It use to be only Public and VA were this bad. I was the ONLY Patient there, treated like dirt. And it was no longer attached to the Hospital upstairs. X Ray Techs were the only competent people there. Even with copies of ins cards they couldn’t bill it right. What is so hard to Bill Medicare/Tricare Life. They actually sent the bill to a Collection Agency.
Oh noes that IT we’re done for now, doomed and done for I tell ya!
Once they implement it, and you discover that you have cancer, and the treatment centers are three to six hours away from where you live, and that getting into the appointment system will involve bribing someone...trust will dry up real quick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.