Petition to expand Medicare to be the Single Payer Healthcare System for the USA

[GrantM]

Do we always have to knock the rich?

Because the system is rigged.

The modern economy is a keptrocracy. The compensation system is broken and the people who really do the work don't get their rewards,
which are being siphoned off by the top. It's only right that the tax system is set up to redistribute some of the stolen money so regular folks
don't go bankrupt by getting sick.

-g

[Corso]

I wasn't knocking the rich at all. I was quoting the CBO analysis of the Trump/Ryan plan and it did in fact have a $1Trillion tax cut for high income tax payers.

If you would like me to attack them I'd be happy to. How about this little factoid about the rich: According to recent research the top 8 most wealthy individuals in the world (6 of them are American) are worth more than the bottom 3.6 Billion people .

To help get a better feeling about these think about it in terms of time. 8 seconds is 8 seconds. 3.6Billion seconds is slightly over 114 years.

Now tell me the rich get picked on too much...

So what’s the reason you want to pick on them? Why do the numbers you quote make them a target?

I’m trying to understand, really.

Don’t you get that those 6 americans you quoted pay taxes for all those who don’t?

Do you work for free? Do you like to get paid? Do you ever say “oh I’m fine, don’t pay me any more money”???

How about this: for every custom Firefly owner, there are 2.8 billion Huffy-quality bike owners.
Is the Firefly owner someone who should be “attacked”?

[Matthew Strongin]

Because not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. Just like not a single Democrat would have voted for Trumpcare. That’s his point.

So, if we live with it. You know, the same bill Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill before you can see what's in it”… The same one that insured we all paid MORE, not less like Obama promised. A little detail the left just skips over. Raise your hand if you pay LESS for health insurance.

And she has the sack to call Trump attempt a “rookie move”? He’s a quick study Nancy--I wouldn’t be so glib.

So Obamacare stays. How do you folks who live in Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming--where you only have one provider. That’s zero choice. So pay what the insurance company demands. Or pay the government the penalty costs. Trumpcare would have changed that.

I love the way the Dem Seth Moultin just said “We fought hard, the American people have spoken and we defeated the bill…”

Yeah, it never went to a vote…so WTF is the Left crowing about? The Republicans defeated themselves.

The Left shouldn’t be so happy. The next time the Right does this, it may not be “Obamacare light”--and the next time the Right won’t lose.

Granted, it's hard to follow his ramblings from time to time, but I doubt Trump meant anything beyond, "hey the Dems didn't vote for this bill so that's why it didn't pass," rather than taking a hard look at just how unpopular it was among his own party. Republicans have campaigned on the promise of tearing down Obamacare for 3 or 4 election cycles, which they've won taking over the full reigns of government, and their best attempt at delivering on all those promises was a hastily pieced together piece of legislation that their own party couldn't agree on. This is what we get when politicians run on promises and not proposals (and that goes for all sides). And after all that they gave it one shot before moving on and deciding to just let the ACA fail as a political tactic. This should have their constituents calling for their heads. It won't, unfortunately, because people are so divided that they'll stand up for their party even when their party stands on them.

If the Republicans were truly interested in helping to solve problems like the ones you note in your post, why not work to pass legislation that addresses those problems. I suspect that it's because fixing the system doesn't deliver the tax reform for the rich that they're really after. I'd love for them to prove me wrong, but given Trump's boredom with AHCA after 2 months and desire to move on to tax reform immediately, it doesn't seem likely.

As for the discussion of the wealthy, there comes a point where enough is enough. I don't begrudge others success. By most sane measures, I've been pretty successful (meaning I can afford childish hobbies, living in an expensive city, and going on vacation; I recognize that many don't have that luxury). But when you're worth billions upon billions of dollars and fighting to keep every last penny by exercising every legal loophole rather than seeing that your contribution could really help the country and community, there's something wrong. I'm not saying it's illegal. But, IMO, from a moral and social responsibility standpoint, it shows a lack of character and a lack of foresight.

[Corso]

As for the discussion of the wealthy, there comes a point where enough is enough.---But when you're worth billions upon billions of dollars and fighting to keep every last penny by exercising every legal loophole rather than seeing that your contribution could really help the country and community, there's something wrong. I'm not saying it's illegal. But, IMO, from a moral and social responsibility standpoint, it shows a lack of character and a lack of foresight.

Nicely said. It’s not illegal-that’s my point. Is it moral? Most would agree it’s not.

I TOTALLY agree, some of the salaries are insane at the top. Shareholders of those companies need to speak out and get those boards to reign things in. But here’s the catch: Have a 401k? Do you like to see it grow, do well? Are you fully aware of each fund’s investments that earn you money? as long as people are making money, no one wants to get into it.

But the wealthy (and their wealthy lawyers) know how to keep their wealth. Dig to far into their vaults, and they will find another country in order to keep their wealth. England is a prime example. It’s a balance we (unfortunately) need to be mindful of.

“Pay their fair share” is a saying that drives me nuts. They already DO pay their fair share, already do donate to charities. Own companies that provide jobs. Own property that is taxed. Buy lot’s of stuff that keep that retail cycle going.

Pro athletes make a lot of money. Actors make a lot of money. Some in both categories, are also ridiculous when you consider it’s all entertainment. No one seems to slam the Facebook King for his wealth, because he leans left.

But they too are often jumping into politics to follow the mantra of “the rich are bad”. Not the rich on their side, just the “other rich”.

Remember, any taxpayer can chose to pay more in taxes than they are legally required to do. The wealthy politicians who decry “pay fair share” only pay what they need to--never seem to check that "pay more" box either.

[bigbill]

I can't seem to find much good news in any of the recent events concerning healthcare. ACA is still the law, costs are still rising, fewer companies are offering plans, and people are still uninsured. I do volunteer tax return work for United Way on the weekends. I see the people this was meant to help. This year I did 74 returns and only one had purchased insurance through the exchange. With the exceptions of people on Medicare and insurance through work (mostly teachers), most people didn't have insurance for themselves and their kids were on Medicaid or CHIP. $695 fair share tax added to each person without insurance unless they had some kind of exemption. People like to tout the additional 20 million on insurance and I'm sure they're out there somewhere, but the people I worked with either don't know how to use the exchange or couldn't afford the plans offered. When ACA was introduced, one of the plans was to have "navigators" help people enroll. These community resources were short lived and by the time ACA would hurt at tax time, were pretty much non-existent. In this county of 30K people, there is one resource to help people enroll. Most still go to the emergency room for colds.

ACA will have to be amended to continue. Could just let it implode. None of this ever addressed the root cause which is cost, we only enabled a group of industries by coming up with a way to pay them. ACA failed to bring in the younger, healthier people to lower the costs because the fair share tax implementation was phased in. There was no incentive to get insurance until the fair share tax became high enough to affect people. Meanwhile the insurers backed out because of the risk pool and costs. Viewed as a long term plan, it might work, but for profit businesses like insurance, they need to show cash flow to make a market viable.

For the rich, change the tax structure and they'll change their income distribution. CEO's will get less pay and more in dividends. But the super wealthy is a tiny group that pays a tremendous amount in taxes. Trump's taxes were leaked, I make a good living and he paid 37+ million more than I did in taxes and I'd put myself in the upper middle class. Placing more tax burden on them will just make them move their money and perhaps businesses overseas. I don't begrudge the people with billions as long as they are business owners that create employment, support charities (even if for tax breaks), and treat people fairly. If they are just hording their dollars and doing things that might be legal but most would feel are immoral, then shame on them. But they aren't the answer to healthcare costs.

[spopepro]

For the rich, change the tax structure and they'll change their income distribution. CEO's will get less pay and more in dividends.

The whole idea behind changing the tax structure is to eliminate the absurdly low capital gains rate, along with other strategies that make pay in options, equity, and stock (not dividends, which are income, but as a tax preparer, I'm sure you knew that) hugely adventageous.

People keep on bringing up charity like it's a good thing. Man... do we sure see the world in different ways. I guess all the people with Go Fund Me pages to cover their life saving medical care costs warms your heart?

[jclay]

I can't seem to find much good news in any of the recent events concerning healthcare. ACA is still the law, costs are still rising, fewer companies are offering plans, and people are still uninsured. I do volunteer tax return work for United Way on the weekends. I see the people this was meant to help. This year I did 74 returns and only one had purchased insurance through the exchange. With the exceptions of people on Medicare and insurance through work (mostly teachers), most people didn't have insurance for themselves and their kids were on Medicaid or CHIP. $695 fair share tax added to each person without insurance unless they had some kind of exemption. People like to tout the additional 20 million on insurance and I'm sure they're out there somewhere, but the people I worked with either don't know how to use the exchange or couldn't afford the plans offered. When ACA was introduced, one of the plans was to have "navigators" help people enroll. These community resources were short lived and by the time ACA would hurt at tax time, were pretty much non-existent. In this county of 30K people, there is one resource to help people enroll. Most still go to the emergency room for colds.

ACA will have to be amended to continue. Could just let it implode. None of this ever addressed the root cause which is cost, we only enabled a group of industries by coming up with a way to pay them. ACA failed to bring in the younger, healthier people to lower the costs because the fair share tax implementation was phased in. There was no incentive to get insurance until the fair share tax became high enough to affect people. Meanwhile the insurers backed out because of the risk pool and costs. Viewed as a long term plan, it might work, but for profit businesses like insurance, they need to show cash flow to make a market viable.

For the rich, change the tax structure and they'll change their income distribution. CEO's will get less pay and more in dividends. But the super wealthy is a tiny group that pays a tremendous amount in taxes. Trump's taxes were leaked, I make a good living and he paid 37+ million more than I did in taxes and I'd put myself in the upper middle class. Placing more tax burden on them will just make them move their money and perhaps businesses overseas. I don't begrudge the people with billions as long as they are business owners that create employment, support charities (even if for tax breaks), and treat people fairly. If they are just hording their dollars and doing things that might be legal but most would feel are immoral, then shame on them. But they aren't the answer to healthcare costs.

Tax Based, Single Payer System

[ericpmoss]

The expectation that shareholder profit has to exist at every level of what is at heart a public utility, is to guarantee the disaster we see. Get rid of one useless layer of profit, and we'll be much closer to affording decent care for far more people. Sign me up for single payer.

[Matthew Strongin]

Pro athletes make a lot of money. Actors make a lot of money. Some in both categories, are also ridiculous when you consider it’s all entertainment. No one seems to slam the Facebook King for his wealth, because he leans left.

This is a bit off topic from the real point of the thread, but FWIW I lean pretty far left, which probably doesn't surprise you, and I also work in the same industry as Zuckerberg and his ilk. I'm more than happy to slam him and his peers for becoming the richest people in the world on the backs of garbage like Facebook.

[Matthew Strongin]

Granted, it's hard to follow his ramblings from time to time, but I doubt Trump meant anything beyond, "hey the Dems didn't vote for this bill so that's why it didn't pass," rather than taking a hard look at just how unpopular it was among his own party. Republicans have campaigned on the promise of tearing down Obamacare for 3 or 4 election cycles, which they've won taking over the full reigns of government, and their best attempt at delivering on all those promises was a hastily pieced together piece of legislation that their own party couldn't agree on. This is what we get when politicians run on promises and not proposals (and that goes for all sides). And after all that they gave it one shot before moving on and deciding to just let the ACA fail as a political tactic. This should have their constituents calling for their heads. It won't, unfortunately, because people are so divided that they'll stand up for their party even when their party stands on them.

If the Republicans were truly interested in helping to solve problems like the ones you note in your post, why not work to pass legislation that addresses those problems. I suspect that it's because fixing the system doesn't deliver the tax reform for the rich that they're really after. I'd love for them to prove me wrong, but given Trump's boredom with AHCA after 2 months and desire to move on to tax reform immediately, it doesn't seem likely.

Well, apologies for the self quote, but this article sheds some light on why things unfolded how they did. It seems they were more concerned with leveraging a procedural loophole to get the W than creating a law to fix the issues with ACA that even many Dems would agree with.

On health reform, Donald Trump followed Republican leaders into a ditch - Vox

[jclay]

Well, apologies for the self quote, but this article sheds some light on why things unfolded how they did. It seems they were more concerned with leveraging a procedural loophole to get the W than creating a law to fix the issues with ACA that even many Dems would agree with.

On health reform, Donald Trump followed Republican leaders into a ditch - Vox

Ryan & Co. are concerned with idealogical purity, not seeing that all of us have unimpeaded access to necessary health care. He's made statements that have no other reasonable interpretation; some have been damn close to saying it outright.

Trump is, obviously, nothing more than a clueless bully.

When I want to learn how to do something, like build bicycle frames or engineer process plants, I seek out those who clearly know how to do it and go to school on their expertise. If I was prez, or Ryan, or any other MOC and was confronted with facts indicating superior cost efficiencies and uninterrupted access to highest quality care, AND I GENUINELY desired better health care for my constituents I'd shut my effing ideological mouth and get a whole bunch of my folks to figure out how to do the same. Japan did that in the industrial arena after WWII; the results wrt quality of their manufactured products speak for themselves. That people who, in any non-political-ideological context would do the same but don't for this issue, says everything that needs to be said about their intent and mindset. They believe in small government more than in making better lives for the maximum number of people. I suggest that anybody who believes the same pick a country with a small, socially ineffective government, with lots of firearms in the population, and go try it on for a couple of years; then get back to us with how much you liked it.

[bigbill]

The whole idea behind changing the tax structure is to eliminate the absurdly low capital gains rate, along with other strategies that make pay in options, equity, and stock (not dividends, which are income, but as a tax preparer, I'm sure you knew that) hugely adventageous.

People keep on bringing up charity like it's a good thing. Man... do we sure see the world in different ways. I guess all the people with Go Fund Me pages to cover their life saving medical care costs warms your heart?

I only prepare taxes for low income and fixed income elderly people as a volunteer, haven't done taxes for anyone wealthy yet. Was the second comment aimed at me?

[jclay]

I forgot to mention that I know several people, seniors, who have healthcare precisely because of the ACA. They all work, aren't able to make the dough they used to earn and can't afford the full cost. They're extremely grateful to Obama and happy, as older folks with physical issues, to have HC insurance with no pre-existing condition clauses. Were it not for Obama, pre-existing conditions would, of course, be exempt from coverag that they still wouldn't be able to afford.

Tangent: Interesting, isn't it, that not ten years ago the general conservative stance was against disallowing coverage denial areas due to pre-existing conditions; they didn't have a problem with that (it's the market...it's how it works so what could be wrong?) and now, lo and behold, most want to keep it! Kinda like conservative thought and woman's suffrage...ITS GONNA RUIN US! Or conservatives and Civil Rights, mid last century. Who amongst you all want to turn those issues back? Yet conservatives at the time were convinced those changes would lead to disaster. Wrong. Again and again and again.

Anyway, all of them spent the majority of their working lives with HC insurance via their jobs (employee + employer contributions). None are particularly happy about loss of the benefit of their decades of previous contributions, again well into six figures, but back in the day they did what everybody else did and never questioned it. Now they're shaking their heads wondering HTF they and the rest of society don't recognize the enormity of the flaws, the rip off racket really, with a private insurance based HC system.

I just woke up.....is that coffee I'm smelling?

[Cookietruck]

on my second coffee, saw this and i'm wondering how well is a democratic crafted piece of legislation gonna go over????

the art of the deal...
Priebus: Trump will seek Democratic support on health care - POLITICO

[Dallas Tex]

on my second coffee, saw this and i'm wondering how well is a democratic crafted piece of legislation gonna go over????

the art of the deal...
Priebus: Trump will seek Democratic support on health care - POLITICO

Hopefully, this will lead to a bi-partisan crafted piece of legislation going over well.

[vertical_doug]

Watch what the administration does not what it says....

The scariest part of the Freedom Caucus demands is the elimination of significant parts of ACA essential health benefits list. Initially, it started out as maternity care, mental health and addiction treatment, services to manage chronic diseases, but expanded to include care in doctors' offices or other outpatient settings, emergency services, hospital care, prescription drugs and pediatric services.

The whole point of ACA MEC was to avoid the risk of skimpy and inadequate insurance. Passage of this will allow a whole new class of predatory skimpy insurance plans.

[jclay]

During the course of this thread I've identified several serious economic and HC service shortcomings that result from our use of a plethora of disconnected, private insurance policies as the financial basis for health care. I've also identified an existing alternative that I assert remedies those flaws along with the reasons it does so. How come folks aren't reacting to that?

Nobody has pointed out any technical reasons that a national single payer system will fail to work, indicated why they don't mind losing the benefit of a couple hundred thousand dollars in lifetime HC contributions, why periodic loss of coverage, or any of the other defects I've noted about our current system are OK with them.

That puzzles me. I'm starting work on an article with a local orthopedic surgeon that will largely focus on the issues I've identified in the course of this thread. It's intended for widespread distribution in making the case for single payer. It would help us greatly if you guys would note whether or not the arguments I've made here, particularly the individual financial ones, resonate, and why.

PM or within this thread, with the bark on or off, but I genuinely want to know your reactions and rationale to any/all aspects of what I've presented here. If the flaws and remedies I've presented aren't getting any traction I need to know why.

Thanks in advance.

[Corso]

PM or within this thread, with the bark on or off, but I genuinely want to know your reactions and rationale to any/all aspects of what I've presented here. If the flaws and remedies I've presented aren't getting any traction I need to know why.

Thanks in advance.

Try to omit your dislike and generalizations of Conservatives. Stick to your facts, not emotions and you may gain support from all sides.
I sincerely wish you good luck!

[Matthew J]

Nobody has pointed out any technical reasons that a national single payer system will fail to work, indicated why they don't mind losing the benefit of a couple hundred thousand dollars in lifetime HC contributions, why periodic loss of coverage, or any of the other defects I've noted about our current system are OK with them.

There is no rational argument against single payer.

The debate in this country is whether the US should be a progressive democracy as one finds in Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Oz, and even the odd South American state or a reactionary state such as Russia and where much of Eastern Europe and Turkey are heading.

Single payer of necessity needs acceptance and empathy for the 'other'. If the state is centered on opposing the 'other' no argument in favor of single payer, despite statistics showing superior infant survival rates, lower incidents of debilitating disease, longer lifer spans, and, of seeming importance to budget hawks - lower costs - will work.

[bigbill]

During the course of this thread I've identified several serious economic and HC service shortcomings that result from our use of a plethora of disconnected, private insurance policies as the financial basis for health care. I've also identified an existing alternative that I assert remedies those flaws along with the reasons it does so. How come folks aren't reacting to that?

Nobody has pointed out any technical reasons that a national single payer system will fail to work, indicated why they don't mind losing the benefit of a couple hundred thousand dollars in lifetime HC contributions, why periodic loss of coverage, or any of the other defects I've noted about our current system are OK with them.

That puzzles me. I'm starting work on an article with a local orthopedic surgeon that will largely focus on the issues I've identified in the course of this thread. It's intended for widespread distribution in making the case for single payer. It would help us greatly if you guys would note whether or not the arguments I've made here, particularly the individual financial ones, resonate, and why.

PM or within this thread, with the bark on or off, but I genuinely want to know your reactions and rationale to any/all aspects of what I've presented here. If the flaws and remedies I've presented aren't getting any traction I need to know why.

Thanks in advance.

You're throwing ideas out there with no basis in facts or reality. Like cutting the defense budget in half to pay for health care. You could make cuts, especially in expensive programs like the Littoral Combat Ships and some advanced aircraft, but the fact is the world is an unstable place and a US military presence keeps North Korea out of South Korea, keeps shipping lanes open in the Persian Gulf, Horn of Africa, and the Strait of Malacca. We have forces in Syria and Iraq right now fighting Daesh. Solving that conflict will reduce the number of refugees trying to flee the country to Europe or the US. When the tsunami occurred in SE Asia in December 2014, the US Navy was the first to respond with medical and food supplies. Same thing for the earthquake in Haiti. The US Navy was the lead in actions and recovery for Fukushima. You mentioned talking to combat Veterans and their questioning of US policy. I served 27 years, E-1 to O-4, I've seen it from all sides. A combat Veteran who served 4-8 years is an expert on combat, not overall military or State Department policy. They know their jobs very well, but they aren't the policy makers with all the information, intelligence available, and communications with allies. It would be like saying a NASCAR driver is an automotive industry expert. I bitched and complained about all kinds of stuff I didn't understand or thought was stupid and pointless when I progressing through the enlisted ranks. I only had one enlisted paygrade to go when I became an officer. Once I was in a position to see all the intelligence, tactics, and factors that went into decisions, I had a greater appreciation of the process. It wasn't brainwashing, it was seeing things from a higher level. Bottom line, you could cut the military and still have an effective force, but your numbers are way off and talking to combat Vets isn't the best source of information about overall strategy and costs.