3 ms·

For older people with more medical issues, the tax will be lower than paying for private medical care. For younger people it will be a tougher sell. Also, don't

For older people with more medical issues, the tax will be lower than paying for private medical care. For younger people it will be a tougher sell. Also, don't underestimate the political power of those who are accustomed to the "freedom" of not having insurance and just going to the emergency room when they get hurt. Nationalized health care will also have to grapple with freedom of religion. Does Medicare pay extra money for specialized operations so that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to get blood transfusions? Does Medicare not cover certain medical treatments or procedures to ensure certain religious constituencies don't have their hard earned tax dollars paying for "sinful" activities?

viraptor 8y ago
> For younger people it will be a tougher sell. How about: You know how you're considering if checking out X is worth the money you'd pay? Now you can just do that and potentially save money on handling a severe problem later on.
tfehring 8y ago
Younger people, with the possible exception of the highest-earning younger people, would likely benefit from Medicare for All. Currently, coverage for older and unhealthy people is cross-subsidized by younger and healthier people, due to the ACA's 3:1 age band and "adjusted community rating" respectively. It's unlikely that Medicare for All or any other broad public insurance program would be paid for by taxes on younger people specifically. More likely, instead of older and unhealthy people's insurance being cross-subsidized by younger people, it will be subsidized by high-earning and/or wealthy people. I agree that freedom of religion makes things tricky. In fact, I'd broaden it to freedom of choice in general. Should we tax obese people because we don't want to subsidize their poor health decisions? What about smokers? How many times should we pay for expensive rehab facilities for drug addicts who repeatedly relapse? How long should we pay for comatose, vegetative patients to occupy hospital beds? But for what it's worth, all of these decisions are already being made (to the extent that regulation allows) by private insurers, and while they'll be tricky regardless, I'd rather have them made by the government than by the private sector.
xs83 8y ago
It occurs to me just how much the US has poisoned its citizens against a national medicare type system. You know - no one in the UK even thinks - "Well I am paying more in taxes to treat old people", we all realise that at some point we will all be there and not having to worry about it or maintaining it or being excluded from something certainly makes everything a whole lot less stressful! Likewise I don't even think about how much I am paying for Midwifery, Anti Natal, Pediatric services etc - I understand that different people have different needs and that everyone should get a fair shot at getting what they need.

viraptor 8y ago

> For younger people it will be a tougher sell. How about: You know how you're considering if checking out X is worth the money you'd pay? Now you can just do that and potentially save money on handling a severe problem later on.

tfehring 8y ago

Younger people, with the possible exception of the highest-earning younger people, would likely benefit from Medicare for All. Currently, coverage for older and unhealthy people is cross-subsidized by younger and healthier people, due to the ACA's 3:1 age band and "adjusted community rating" respectively. It's unlikely that Medicare for All or any other broad public insurance program would be paid for by taxes on younger people specifically. More likely, instead of older and unhealthy people's insurance being cross-subsidized by younger people, it will be subsidized by high-earning and/or wealthy people. I agree that freedom of religion makes things tricky. In fact, I'd broaden it to freedom of choice in general. Should we tax obese people because we don't want to subsidize their poor health decisions? What about smokers? How many times should we pay for expensive rehab facilities for drug addicts who repeatedly relapse? How long should we pay for comatose, vegetative patients to occupy hospital beds? But for what it's worth, all of these decisions are already being made (to the extent that regulation allows) by private insurers, and while they'll be tricky regardless, I'd rather have them made by the government than by the private sector.

xs83 8y ago

It occurs to me just how much the US has poisoned its citizens against a national medicare type system. You know - no one in the UK even thinks - "Well I am paying more in taxes to treat old people", we all realise that at some point we will all be there and not having to worry about it or maintaining it or being excluded from something certainly makes everything a whole lot less stressful! Likewise I don't even think about how much I am paying for Midwifery, Anti Natal, Pediatric services etc - I understand that different people have different needs and that everyone should get a fair shot at getting what they need.