Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, you can buy private insurance in all countries with NAtional Health. That is how is done in England.
This is how I see it. Medicare could easily cover the young people for a lower premium than what they pay now to private health insurance.
How so, when seniors had to have paid premiums (taxes) for decades before they become eligible for Medicare benefits, and even then, they have to pay premiums out of their SS check to even receive Medicare benefits? Perhaps your scheme would work if young people paid Medicare premiums for 2 or 3 decades before they can collect any benefits.
How so, when seniors had to have paid premiums (taxes) for decades before they become eligible for Medicare benefits, and even then, they have to pay premiums out of their SS check to even receive Medicare benefits? Perhaps your scheme would work if young people paid Medicare premiums for 2 or 3 decades before they can collect any benefits.
I've thought of the same thing before. Rates for those after 40 years of age increase substantially and continue to increase as they get closer to 65. Those younger command lower rates which makes sense. How about if Americans were able to use medicare at 40 or 45 instead of 65? It seems simple enough but I have a hunch lobbyist will attempt to squash that idea. Also, I would wager rates would then climb substantially for those over 30.
I've thought of the same thing before. Rates for those after 40 years of age increase substantially and continue to increase as they get closer to 65. Those younger command lower rates which makes sense. How about if Americans were able to use medicare at 40 or 45 instead of 65?
Sure, as long as they paid premiums (Medicare tax) for 2 or 3 decades before that. Otherwise, continuing them on Medicare starting at 40 or 45 and continuing past age 65 is financially unsustainable. Too much draw on benefits, not enough premiums (taxes) paid to support 40+ years or so of Medicare benefits for each person.
Maybe capitalism has run it's course and it's time for something like Democratic Socialism. I've said for years that the healthcare industry should be nationalized right down to the research labs. How can it be worse than what we have going now?
Sure, as long as they paid premiums (Medicare tax) for 2 or 3 decades before that. Otherwise, continuing them on Medicare starting at 40 or 45 and continuing past age 65 is financially unsustainable. Too much draw on benefits, not enough premiums (taxes) paid to support 40+ years or so of Medicare benefits for each person.
Perhaps a more realistic number ---45-50 instead or even 55. But my gut feeling, and I believe many other first world countries came to the conclusion that for-profit insurance companies being the main driver in delivering healthcare is no longer an option, non-profit would be.
bmw335xi wrote: These programs would never work at the state level, it would have to be nationwide or nothing.
Care to explain your reasoning here? I see no reason why these programs would have any less of a chance working at the state level. This idea of its all or nothing that we see these days is mainly spin and talking points in my opinion. For instance the idea that if you are for something you must be against something. There are plenty of points in the middle someone could stand.
As an example I will use myself and my ideas on Abortion. I am for it and I am also against it. You see I feel that part of the price to be paid for liberty and freedom is the idea that people will use their own liberties and freedoms to sometimes do things you don't agree with. In the case of Abortion I agree mostly with the Supreme Court see the cases Roe v. Wade 1973 and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 1992. In short the Supreme Court decided that there were two liberties to be protected here. The liberties of the mother and the liberties of the unborn life inside of her. That these two liberties should be given priority on a sliding scale. During the beginning of pregnancy the liberties of the mother were of more importance than the liberties of the unborn child. And as the pregnancy continued to it conclusion the priority shifted from the mother to the priority of protecting the unborn child. They considered this shift to happen at Viability.
So despite what everyone talks about these days about woman's rights, the right to choose, war on woman. No State can hinder in any meaningful way a Woman's right to get an Abortion pre viability. And no State can keep a woman from getting an abortion post viability when it comes to the preservation and protection of maternal health.
So all this crap is just talking points like in cases of rape. Well that is already in place any woman from coast to coast can get an abortion in cases of rape or any other reason pre viability. Now you could say that she couldn't get one post viability if there is no reason to believe it would cause personal harm to the mother. But seriously in what world would it take a woman 20-24 weeks to decide to get an abortion because she was raped. She would know well before 20-24 weeks if she did or did not want to carry the baby of her rapist to term. And lets just say we live in the world where it does take some females a full 20-24 weeks to decide to abort her rapist baby. What number of those girls be? 0.0002%? At the rate of 1.2 million abortions per year and of those abortions only 3% being done post viability (360,000). .0002% of 360,000 would be .72 people it would affect. So your telling me we are having whole political debates and movements to protect the right of not even 1 whole person per year to have an abortion post viability because of rape?
But anyway off the rant and back to my point. I personally am against Abortion. Yes it does hurt and pisses me off that there are large groups of girls out there using it an a form of birth control. But I don't live in a world where what I think is the only thing that matters. I have no wish to stand here as a limited government constitutional conservative and say that in the cases where I believe differently I agree that I want a Big Government to step in and tell you how to live. Like I said earlier " I feel that part of the price to be paid for liberty and freedom is the idea that people will use their own liberties and freedoms to sometimes do things you don't agree with".
The 10th Amendment answers this question pretty clearly.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".
This clearly does apply constitutional prohibitions to both the federal government and the states. For example, the 2nd Amendment language .... "..... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not specify who is prohibited from engaging in such infringement, but only that such infringement is prohibited by the Constitution.
There are certain powers delegated to the federal government, with all other powers not delegated, reserved to the states and the people. At the same time, those "rights" specified in the bill of rights applying to the people provide universal protection from violation be it federal or state government. "Due Process" is another example which applies to both federal and states, when assuring the people of due process.
Fact is, the Supreme Court is often dealing with cases brought to it where a citizen's constitutional rights are alleged to have been violated by that person's state government authorities. This clearly demonstrates that the bill of rights does indeed restrict the actions of both federal and state authorities.
There is a way to make anything and everything "financially sustainable",
and it is very simple. Eliminate the private Central Bank. Constitutionally,
Congress is the appointed originator of money. What this means is that
the U.S. Federal government should never have to borrow, ever. It would
be the sole legal determinator of money and its value. If this were done,
no borrowing would take place, whether from foreign banks or from domestic
banks. All Federal debt could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen.
The U.S. government would simply issue new notes (United States Notes)
and swap them for Federal Reserve Notes.
John F. Kennedy was working on this before his assassination.
What's been happening for many decades now is that the private "Federal Reserve"
has expanded the money supply exponentially - and every single Note it issues
is a DEBT on the American people.
This is slavery to the corporate banking cartel and it must end.
The parent bank issues free currency to its subsidiary banks, which loan to
the State and Municipal governments, who pay interest to spend this money
for projects. That works directly against the interests of the people. Our present
system enslaves the people to private banks. It must be discontinued.
Perhaps a more realistic number ---45-50 instead or even 55.
They'd still have to pay premiums (taxes) for 2 to 3 decades (or more) first. Medicare for all isn't sustainable. It only works because people pay in for 2, 3, or sometimes even more decades before they're eligible for any benefits at all. And even then, they STILL have to pay premiums for Medicare. It's not a freebie. You prepay for decades, and then pay more once you become eligible for benefits. What 45-50 year old is going to be able to meet those decades of contributions requirements?
There is a way to make anything and everything "financially sustainable",
and it is very simple. Eliminate the private Central Bank. Constitutionally,
Congress is the appointed originator of money. What this means is that
the U.S. Federal government should never have to borrow, ever. It would
be the sole legal determinator of money and its value. If this were done,
no borrowing would take place, whether from foreign banks or from domestic
banks. All Federal debt could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen.
The U.S. government would simply issue new notes (United States Notes)
and swap them for Federal Reserve Notes.
people are complaining about insurance price, why not just outlaw tobacco and alchol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
