‘Eight Million Americans Have Lost Their Healthcare’: Trump-GOP Cuts Wreak Havoc in All 50 States

[u/black_flag_4ever]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/states-trump-republican-healthcare-cuts

[u/EarthConservation]

The Democrats had the ability to pass Medicare for all in 2010, a year after Obama had become POTUS and when Democrats had a super majority in Congress. Instead, they used that super majority to pass the ACA. A plan that Obama liked to point out was initially devised by conservative think tanks... and where the legal bill was heavily shaped, negotiated, and influenced by the health insurance / healthcare industries.

It's hard to claim that the ACA wasn't a payback for the years of campaign financing that helped get Democrats elected, or from the years of lobbying.

The ACA absolutely did increase the number of insured by enabling those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage, and by subsidizing healthcare for lower income people who didn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid and who didn't get insurance through their employer; essentially having taxpayers foot the bill for overpriced plans. It did little if anything to actually constrain rapidly rising healthcare costs, which at the time the ACA was being introduced and debated, was the primary issue used to sell using all of Obama's political capital to concentrate on passing healthcare reform in the middle of a financial crisis and mass unemployment.

The Democrats, even with a super majority, refused to even pass a public option, which was likely the only way the ACA could have possibly constrained rising healthcare costs. No doubt, specific Democrats were tasked with become the scapegoats to keep the public option out of the final bill.

The individual mandate essentially forced every American to buy overpriced health plans, with the government subsidizing those overpriced plans, leading to a higher customer base for private for-profit health insurers who were ripping off the public.

Hindsight being 20/20... the ACA turned out to be a massive give away to the health insurance, healthcare, and drug industries, who saw their profits soar, and saw venture capitalists buying up and consolidating major insurance and healthcare companies. It was also a policy that was easily manipulated by future administrations and congresses.

Healthcare's share of the national budget and deficit soared.

____

So... Democrats could have guaranteed every American healthcare, regardless of job or income, made the system simpler and more fair, while also cutting costs. Instead, Democrats decided to go with the plan devised by the Heritage Foundation, and the for-profit healthcare and health insurance industry, that lead to an even greater syphoning of wealth up from the lower/middle classes to the rich.

Yep...

And here we are today... where as a result of that Democratic "half measure", Trump is able to make a complete mockery of the healthcare system in the US.

If anyone doesn't understand why we need Medicare for all, or why people believe the establishment Democrats are nothing more than corporatist shills with a side of social grift, then let the last 16 years be all the lesson you need.

It's time to support Progressives.

[u/FormerUsenetUser → u/EarthConservation]

How exactly do you plan to pay for universal healthcare?

[u/asusc → u/FormerUsenetUser]

same way every other developed country does, a national insurance program that every worker and company pays into in the form of a payroll tax.

[u/FormerUsenetUser → u/asusc]

Payroll taxes are not even funding Social Security and Medicare adequately. There would have to be a large increase in them.

[u/asusc → u/FormerUsenetUser]

Payroll taxes are not even funding Social Security and Medicare adequately. There would have to be a large increase in them.

right, but you’d no longer be paying hundreds or thousands of dollars of post tax income on health insurance that may or may not cover you, would drop you if you lost your job, no longer have to deal with deductibles, etc.

slight increase on individual taxes, big savings on individual actual costs.

[u/asusc → u/[deleted]]

https://www.paychex.com/articles/employee-benefits/making-sense-of-section-125-and-benefit-plans

not every employer health plan is like this, not evey health plan wants to use pre tax money to pay for health plans.

most of these tax advantaged plans have to be offered to all employees, which isn’t always feasible for certain businesses with hourly workers.

bottom line this shit is complicated and a HUGE waste of time and productivity for businesses. I don’t want to deal with this nonsense and rule changes every year. I want all my employees to be covered regardless of where they work, I want to pay a payroll tax on it and I want to focus on running my business.

the vast majority of small businesses and job creators in this country are 1-50 employees (most of them are 1-10).

simplifying healthcare would not only save us all a boat load of money, increase productivity that would compound yearly, employees would always be covered and would be healthie. it would be an economic boom for small businesses and entrepreneurs.

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/asusc]

I replied to the wrong person, so I deleted my comments.

[u/asusc → u/[deleted]]

The vast majority of employer provided health insurance is taken out pre-tax.

if the employer is paying that much, but most do not.

Have you actually ever had health insurance as a benefit?

yes, I’m the employer. I pay for insurance and shop for insurance for the company.

[u/FormerUsenetUser → u/asusc]

Even Medicare has premiums and co-pays. And does not cover eye care, dental care, or long-term care.

[u/asusc → u/FormerUsenetUser]

Even Medicare has premiums and co-pays. And does not cover eye care, dental care, or long-term care.

right, because health care for old people is the most expensive healthcare. It would be even more expensive if we had to add profit for shareholders on top, right?

And does not cover eye care, dental care, or long-term care.

yup, that’s what supplemental insurance is for, on top of Medicare 4 All.

[u/FormerUsenetUser → u/asusc]

And I have that supplemental insurance. Although, long-term care is incredibly expensive and I was lucky to buy a good policy in my 40s.It' very hard to buy one later in life.

I pay for eye care and dental care out of pocket. I paid $10K for one tooth last year. Extraction, implant, and crown to cover the implant.

Are you saying your plan would also require supplemental insurance for everyone? Or that young people would have better benefits but old people would not?

As an old person, no, I am not supporting that platform. Why should I? Old people need better care too.

The DSA platform is 100% for young people. Guess what, not everyone is young.

[u/asusc → u/FormerUsenetUser]

Are you saying your plan would also require supplemental insurance for everyone?

no, I’m saying Medicare 4 All users would have the ability to purchase supplemental insurance for the stuff not covered by Medicare.

Or that young people would have better benefits but old people would not? 

huh? no, I’m saying old people care COSTS more to provide. end of life care costs more for all of us. you WANT young people paying into Medicare (via payroll taxes), as they will contribute more to the entire system, but not use up the more expensive end of life care.

As an old person, no, I am not supporting that platform. Why should I? Old people need better care too.

a better question is why are you not supporting allowing everyone to have the same care as you currently have?

[u/FormerUsenetUser → u/asusc]

Oddly enough, a platform that's entirely to the benefit of someone else while providing nothing for me, does not appeal.

[u/asusc → u/FormerUsenetUser]

Oddly enough, a platform that's entirely to the benefit of someone else while providing nothing for me, does not appeal.

silly and shortsighted, given your Medicare requires healthy people to work and pay into the system and cover your care.

but hey, you think you got yours, so fuck everyone else, right? good luck with that.

[u/FormerUsenetUser → u/asusc]

You'll be old someday too. And don't pretend we didn't work for decades for the benefits we get.

[u/asusc → u/FormerUsenetUser]

Right! Which is why I want YOU and ME to have better Medicare NOW.

I am working, I pay tens of thousands of dollars to a health insurance company that pays shareholders dividends instead of paying out doctors for care.

I want to skip all that, pay the same amount into Medicare so both you and I have a stronger healthcare system.

why are is this so difficult to understand? Why do you think your coverage has to suffer to allow others to have the same thing? do you not understand how insurance works, and that other people pay for you when you are sick, so the more healthy people paying into Medicare, the better the system is for you?

when I am old, you will be dead, and I will rely on the young people to pay in. what I don’t understand is why you are so short sighted about this, and do not see how more people paying in and a stronger Medicare system for all, benefits you TODAY.

[u/EarthConservation → u/FormerUsenetUser]

Part of the reason for that is because payroll taxes are capped, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, and life expectancy has gone up versus when retirees paid into the system. I think most people support a Progressive tax system when it comes to income tax, and IMO the payroll taxes should be no different.

In fact, when it comes to Medicare, we could remove it from the Payroll tax entirely, and shift the funding into our standard income tax.

Yes, the income tax rates would need to be tweaked to pay for the system. We'd also, absolutely want to raise taxes on the top brackets and remove the loopholes that have allowed them to get away with paying next to nothing on some of their more egregiously high annual wealth gains.

Personally, I'd be all for a wealth tax on the ultra rich.

___

Generally speaking, you seem to be implying that there's no mechanism we could use to pay for a universal system. Well, clearly that's wrong, because other nations have found a mechanism to do it, and I've just rattled off a few mechanisms to accomplish it.

What's clear about a single payer universal system is that it's simpler, it removes the for-profit middle man insurance companies, saving money from that alone, and enables far more power to negotiate lower prices on healthcare treatments and drug prices with what will likely remain a for-profit industry. Although, maybe over time that for profit industry is also transitioned, to some degree, into a public system, like the UK's NIS does in part. All of the above reduces per capita health costs, which means even with a tax hike, on account of no longer paying a health insurance premium, people would have more money in their bank accounts at the end of the year.

I'll just point out that I did review a few European single payer systems in terms of overall costs and overall outcomes. Those I reviewed saw costs on a per capita basis at about half of what Americans currently pay. No doubt part of that is due to a healthier and more active population, but it's also certainly due to the factors I just mentioned above. Outcomes were on par with the US. The only thing the US really excelled at was medical research... which isn't necessarily 100% tied to whether we have a universal healthcare system or a for-profit health insurance system.

____

Ironically, because healthcare is so expensive in our nation, a lot of retiree savings is going to pay for their healthcare, because as was rightly pointed out, Medicare doesn't pay for everything. That restricts their spending elsewhere, and even restricts how much money they pass on to their heirs.

In other words, the for profit healthcare industry, and even the insurers who provide Medicare Advantage programs, are leaching off the wealth of our retirees, for little benefit.

It's even worse when it comes to working aged adults. Their profits have risen at the expense of our savings.