Universal Healthcare for the United States.

@js357 said
So I pay typically a $35 copay for each visit including when they call ME in. Some procedures have three figure copays. I just renewed an rX for $96 thank you and that’s for one of my 4 drugs. . I pay $106/month to Medicare just for kicks. Last year I had an emergency that cost ~$98,000 on paper. I paid about ~$2000. Of course I’m a retiree who made and paid a lot over the yea ...[text shortened]... s Medicare.

Meet your criteria?

I wonder how many people understand Medicare. It ain’t cheap.

I understand fully. The $35 copay isn't paying in full for your medical care. Thus someone else is paying. If we expand medicare, someone is picking up the tab.

@wolfgang59 said
If that were true you would gleefully post an appropriate link.

Do you deny the existence of waiting lists?

@kazetnagorra said
Pros:
- cheaper
- more efficient
- more effective
- fewer people suffering from easily preventable ailments
- less of a hassle in terms of paperwork for patients

Cons:
- less opportunity to urinate on the graves of people who died from untreated cancer
- gives libertarians and misanthropes a sense of existential dread
- makes it more difficult for health care executives and marketing managers to obtain sufficient cocaine to sniff from the backside of hookers

Hahahaha!!

Classic.

@quackquack said
If the government expands healthcare coverage then those paying into the system will undoubtable pay more. I'm certainly not interested in another system where I pay for myself and then am asked to pay even more for others.

You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.

@eladar said
For all those who pay into Medicare their entire adult life and die before retiring, that is Medicare too.

Better would be a personal savings account to then use to pay for insurance or pass on to their adult kids and grandchildren.

Is that how you are doing it?

@kazetnagorra said
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.

In a free market you blokes can get together voluntarily and show everyone the way.

@quackquack said
I understand fully. The $35 copay isn't paying in full for your medical care. Thus someone else is paying. If we expand medicare, someone is picking up the tab.

If you think about health care as picking up someone else’s tab or their picking up yours, I can understand your attitude. You have the right to your attitude of course but I don’t think being a member of society is a zero-sum, if you win I lose game. We all benefit from having a functioning (if improvable) health care system in a prosperous economy that can tend to those in need of health care regardless of their economic condition. It’s a sign of success as a nation, afaiac.

@kazetnagorra said
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.

Kazet..............So does the quality of care! I mean really......................

@kazetnagorra said
You're missing the part where overall costs go down substantially.

It would be nice if that were magically true but if we increase access to healthcare demand will increase and costs will go up substantially.

@js357 said
If you think about health care as picking up someone else’s tab or their picking up yours, I can understand your attitude. You have the right to your attitude of course but I don’t think being a member of society is a zero-sum, if you win I lose game. We all benefit from having a functioning (if improvable) health care system in a prosperous economy that can tend to those in ne ...[text shortened]... d of health care regardless of their economic condition. It’s a sign of success as a nation, afaiac.

If we could do it without raising taxes on those who already pay the most I'd listen. But the truth is healthcare debates are really a pretext for income redistribution. Obamacare didn't cut costs, It merely made segments of society subsidize others.

@quackquack said
It would be nice if that were magically true but if we increase access to healthcare demand will increase and costs will go up substantially.

Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?

@no1marauder said
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?

Voodoo.

@no1marauder said
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?

Quack is quite correct that this is income redistribution, plain and simple. Folks like me, and I guess Quack, do not favor income redistribution (hard working people supporting those who aren't). You apparently find that to be OK. So, you say above 'How do you explain this?"......How in the world do you 'explain' taking money from Hard Working Sylvester and giving it to Kite-Flying Leonard??? How do you explain that?

@averagejoe1 said
Quack is quite correct that this is income redistribution, plain and simple. Folks like me, and I guess Quack, do not favor income redistribution (hard working people supporting those who aren't). You apparently find that to be OK. So, you say above 'How do you explain this?"......How in the world do you 'explain' taking money from Hard Working Sylvester and giving it to Kite-Flying Leonard??? How do you explain that?

Almost all who received the benefits under the ACA were working.

Maybe you could explain to us why they should be refused medical care when they are sick?

The ACA was mostly paid for by taxes on the businesses that benefited from it and on passive investment income.

@no1marauder said
Actually increases in costs slowed to a trickle after the ACA was passed despite it insuring an extra 20 million or so.

How would you explain this?

Plans keep on increasing faster than inflation while costs such as co-pays increase. It is far from fixed. Plus the opportunity to make real fixes like limiting medical malpractice was completely wasted.