@ToolGuy There is no tax burden? Then how will we pay the $34 Trillion over the next decade? Optional donations?

Illegal immigrants avoid using public services because doing so will reveal their illegal status which is very dangerous for them. Medicare for all will be no different concerning illegal immigrants than any of the other public services offered to citizens. Illegals mostly won't pay in and mostly won't use it either.

Even if you are correct about the cost, which you aren't, medicare for all will COVER EVERYONE FULLY. So even if the cost of the healthcare system decreases a small amount or none at all, it is abundantly obvious that we will be getting more for our money. The entire society will be healthier because EVERYONE will be FULLY covered. A healthier population means more productivity which will cause economic growth.

@RoboGraham So you think having a large population of poor people who can't access medical care is a good idea?

@Flowerwall Can they get healthcare now? No, the affordable care act explicitly excludes undocumented immigrants from gaining access to health insurance. Immigration is a separate issue. Just because medicare for all doesn't provide healthcare to that large population of poor people, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It would change nothing for them but do tremendous good for the rest of us.

I notice that you didn't address my point that med4all will be worth it even if it doesn't save money because everyone is covered and a healthier population leads to economic prosperity. Have you any thoughts on this?

@RoboGraham I do want to return to the subject, but have been unable so far. Hope to continue this discussion and I wish others were giving input, as well. I don't have all the answers. But I think M4A would not be more beneficial to US population than other options could be.

@Flowerwall Take all the time you need. Look into it further and if you keep an open mind, I bet that you will find that medicare for all is the best option.

@Flowerwall Have you thought it over? Anything else to add to this discussion?

@RoboGraham I was thinking it over a little bit just today and this also reminds me of something I need to do too. A little bit more time.

Profits by insurers are already capped by MLR's under provisions set forth in Obamacare. This is something I only recently learned myself and it is quite a smart provision. This type of thinking is how we should be trying to counteract the expense of healthcare not just painting the whole current system as "bad" and then trying to put it all in the hands of the federal government to somehow fix it all for us. They WILL NOT FIX IT. We will all just pay higher taxes and it will increase unemployment, cause possible economic recession either large or small, and increase overall poverty rates, imo.

@ToolGuy We are not every other country. I will bet though that when you look at the big picture, it is actually the US that is the best in terms of the overall opportunity present.

Additionally the more you look at m4a it just doesn't seem the simple, easy solution some on the left are making it out to be. Admistrative costs are only about 6% lower for medicare that private insurance. Medicare implementation is facilitated by other federal agencies as well, so some of the expense is hidden, for instance the role irs plays in collecting taxes that are paid for Medicare. That is just one example. Private insurance offers things medicare does not, making potentially more value per dollar spent. And I guess medicare does not limit out of pocket expense, so that is a huge problem, almost all private insurance does.

@ToolGuy I do agree with you that our current system is not perfect and definitely needs improvement. We need to think of the people that are uninsured, underinsured and healthcare for illegal immigrants, as well. I think if we view m4a as the solution to all that is wrong with healthcare currently we can be easily misled in false promises. I want some form of healthcare available to everyone regardless of ability to pay and citizenship status and I also don't want forced single payer healthcare. Maybe we need to be talking about icreased expansion of Medicaid, increased access to federally funded free clinics. Maybe certain policies are just pure garbage and should have to be sold with a warning label that says "high risk of bankruptcy in instances of serious illness". But just saying m4a is the solution to it all just seems wrong, imo. The reality will be much higher taxes and probably lower healthcare quality overall.

Recently came across reading about Cook County hospital in Chicago, a free hospital, now I wasn't reading about medical care, rather a book that is related to decision making and Cook county hospital Dr. experience there was used as example in improving decision making and medical process based on dealing with high numbers of patients and need to quickly, accurately triage. He created a standard that was brilliant and would improve assessment standards everywhere. This advance was born out of necessity, caring, intelligent understanding - opportunitiess that are lost with a one-size fits all approach to healthcare. Also copying something written about CCH "Cook County Hospital's history is interesting and important, not just to residents of Cook County but as a microcosm of much that was and is wrong with healthcare in America, " This person only focused on what is wrong in comment, what about all that is right? Even as a free hospital CCH was a damn good one. It was much better than some of the for- profit hospitals in the state.

@ToolGuy I just edited and added to previous response. Please read second paragraph above of my previous reply.

@ToolGuy From what I know of the system in Canada average family pays 42% of wages in taxes and still does not have prescription drug coverage. So with only 58% left you have to pay all living expenses and still pay for possibly expensive meds?

@ToolGuy This 42% is a total of all taxes paid includes sales tax, property tax, whatever other taxes there are. That is A LOT. I don't know what percent of insurance plans cover meds here in the US, but people going without meds because they can't afford is HORRIBLE. Because there are in some places free clinics, hospitals I am sure some also dispense meds if you could travel around like in your brother's case he would not go without meds, I would imagine.

I would like to see more information, get it broken down in comparison exactly what is happening in all of our states with regard to medicaid and insurance premiums. A solution to high premiums in the US is subsidizing high risk people. It is the sick that jack up the prices for everyone, and it's a huge number, so if government could help pay that expense down premiums would go way down for all. That would require funding, of course, I say take it off the top.

I think giving serious thought to the garbage plans is also important. Looking at the causes of bankruptcy with regard to the medical expenses in this country is important too. Because there is so much variety in plans, 50 different states nothing follows strict rules, you don't know what's exactly out there and the best fix. Some people don't manage money well and choose not to have health insurance. I am convinced M4A is not the answer though.

Glad your sons meds do get covered. I knew of someone who had a severely hearing impaired infant and insurance was fighting paying the $7,000 hearing aids. I couldn't believe it! I think it got resolved in patients favor, but even having to fight for that is unacceptable. We need to have standards for certain things. I haven't looked too deep into it, but I do wonder what more of the research says regarding the current status of all these plans. It's like we went from having not much in place for citizens, then we passed ACA and now we are thinking about going completely the other way? I don't know, too drastic.

@Flowerwall Oh so the profits that health insurers can make have been capped. That's wonderful, and yet, they are still obscenely wealthy. Why are they allowed to make any profit at all? The money that we put into our healthcare system should be used for HEALTHCARE, not to make rich people richer. We don't allow law enforcement insurers or fire fighter insurers to churn a profit because it is disgusting to force people who are desperate and in danger to be forced to do business with for profit businesses in order to save themselves. Healthcare should be no different.

I paint the entire system as bad because it is bad. We have a chaotic patchwork of insurers who all offer different plans and have separate networks. It's all very complicated and it is meant to be, they design it that way because it allows them to avoid paying as much as possible. This is why hospitals and doctors have to hire billing specialists to try and master this confusing mess which makes healthcare more expensive. It also limits your freedom to choose where to be treated because you must stay in network. Medicare for all will unite all of the doctors and healthcare facilities into a single network making things more efficient and will allow you more freedom in your healthcare.

Does this mean that taxes will be increased, yes of course. You will see a slight increase in your taxes but you will be spared from the squeeze of the for profit insurance market. Unless you are very wealthy or choosing to abstain from buying insurance, you will be saving a lot of money. We will have a system that covers everyone, is much more efficient and allows for greater freedom, and because it it is funded by tax dollars, paying for it will fall more heavily on those who are very wealthy which will help to reduce wealth inequality.

This idea that government funded programs are incapable of running things effectively is just a scare tactic. Did NASA put a man on the moon? Does the military not control most of the world? The healthcare apparatus will be the same as it is now, the only difference will be in how it is payed for. The for profit middle man will be removed and the average person will have a large financial burden lifted.

I do think you are correct that jobs will be lost and this could have some effect on the economy. All the people who work for the insurance companies who's job it is to sit on the phone all day long trying to calm down angry people who have been denied medical procedures that they need, all the health insurance advertisers who waste money trying to get you to get ripped of by their company rather than a competitor, all the billing specialist who have to fight to get the insurers to pay what is owed... These jobs will be obsolete. But the economy will not suffer because of the massive savings that everyone will have because they are no longer forced to spend so much on health insurance. People will be able to afford more and this will stimulate the economy. There is no need to keep this stupid, inefficient, corrupt system in place just because it employs some people, those people can be much more useful working elsewhere in the economy.

@ToolGuy That's such a good point. The USA has wealth in abundance. The idea that we must tax people to death to pay for healthcare is absurd. We could stop feeding our military industrial complex and divert that money to healthcare. We could stop allowing giant corporations and the ultra-wealthy to shirk their duty to pay their fair share of taxes. We could stop this corrupt corporate welfare system we have in place and use the money for healthcare rather than handing it oil companies. And even if taxes have to be raised to pay for medicare for all, it will still be massively more efficient and a much better deal for the average person.

@ToolGuy I'm not the one that needs to be convinced