MEDICARE-For-ALL "IS" A Jobs Bill!

[Segami]

Medicare-for-all *IS* a jobsbill!

But it's for all employers, not just the bankers!


By Jack E. Lohman



" Actually, we can get a "two-fer" by voting in a single-payer Medicare-for-all system. It is both the best health care proposal of them all, and a jobs bill wrapped into one.


So good, in fact, that the US Senate refused to even allow it on the table because the insurance industry objected to the tune of $46 million in campaign bribes. It would eliminate the cash they are now putting into the bank for profits and bonuses.


It's both funny and sad that you can tell how good a bill is by the amount of political cash needed to block it.



Medicare-for-all"


Bottom line: For the same amount of dollars we are spending today (17% of GDP) we could provide first-class Cheney-care to 100% of our population. Including those on Medicaid, SCHIP, worker's comp, and those who are unemployed, uninsured and under-insured.


We'd eliminate the 31% of insurance bureaucracy waste (reduce hospital and clinic billing clerks, eliminate exorbitant CEO salaries and bonuses, actuarial and denial costs, gatekeepers, broker commissions, rising shareholder profits, and even the political contributions that allow the politicians to share in the system).


We'd spend that money on healthcare instead.


Actually, we'd save $400 billion if we did nothing else, but that savings has already been earmarked for expanding the system to include limited vision and dental. Yet it still allows people to buy additional Gap coverage on the outside for things Medicare doesn't cover, like cosmetic surgery. And we'd retain the 20% co-pay, which Gap policies can also cover.


We'd pay for the system the same way other countries do, through our national infrastructure" about 2% on individual taxes and 8% on company wages (as opposed to the 15% they pay today). But other forms can be established, like a value added tax (VAT) on imported product. (How's that for returning American jobs?)



" it *IS* a jobs bill!



Employers now spend an average 15% of wages on health care benefits, which they pass on to the consumer at the cash register.


But this new Medicare-for-all system benefits only US manufacturers, and makes them more competitive with product from countries already with universal health care. The Big Three already make more cars in Ontario than the US because their health costs are $800 per employee there versus $6500 here.


The 15% of wages saved can instead be spent on adding new technologies and new jobs. Businesses could spend the savings on keeping jobs in the US instead of outsourcing to countries already with universal healthcare. That's a bailout for 100% of our businesses, not just the banks and car manufacturers.


more


<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Medicare-for-all-IS-a-jo-by-Jack-Lohman-100213-81.html>

[msongs]

1. our politicians are the biggest threat this country faces: repubs and repub appeasers nt

[Segami]

10. How low must we sink before the masses wake up and smell the rot of what REALLY

is going here with HCR?


" The problem, of course, is that the expenses and waste that could be and should be cut, are somebody else's profits. And the politicians don't like that a bit because they get a piece of them.

Our corrupt political system is killing America in more ways than just this.

[dysfunctional press]

2. i'd rather have a comprehensive single-payer system than "medicare-for-all".

medicare isn't single-payer. it only covers 80%, and if you can't get supplemental coverage- you're on the hook for that other 20%, which can really add up if you have a chronic condition or a catastrophic occurrence.
medicare also doesn't cover vision, dental, or hearing aids.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. OTOH, medicare for all is understandable to the general public, and not

freighted with 'socialism' like single-payer is; it is doable in today's political climate; and it IS just a short step away from genuine comprehensive single-payer.

I'd be MORE than happy to go with medicare for all.

[dysfunctional press]

7. it's a moot point.

because it isn't going to happen.

but if we ever do get some type of universal healthcare, i'd rather it be a single-payer system from the get-go, rather than 'medicare-for-all'. once they instituted 'medicare-for-all', rather than adding things to it to make it more of a 'single-payer' system, they'd make cuts and add exclusions to water it down even further.

[sharesunited]

9. Go with Medicare Eligibility For All.

Medicare For All sounds mandatory and stokes irrational fear of a government takeover of the medical delivery system.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Absolutely.

If someone wants to keep his overpriced, inefficient, pays-at-the-whim-of-the-insurer insurance company, by all means let him.

[PHIMG]

13. Medicare for All references HR676, and S703

Expanded and Improved Medicare for All - It is single payer.

Improved Medicare for All

A single payer, Medicare for All national health insurance program could save over $400 billion annually now wasted on overhead and bureaucracy, enough to cover all 47 million uninsured Americans. It would allow patients to go to the private doctor or hospital of their choice with no more HMO restrictions. Private insurance is a defective product that costs too much and covers too little - three-fourths of all bankruptcies for medical bills are among people who have insurance. We have 44 years of positive experience with Medicare taking care of our nation's most vulnerable patients - seniors, the disabled, and people with kidney failure. Medicare for All would also allow the nation to reduce costs by buying medications in bulk, negotiating fees with doctors, and budgeting hospitals and other facilities. It would also allow Medicare benefits to be improved (to eliminate co-pays and deductibles, to add a comprehensive, permanent drug benefit, etc)

And even as it exists today Medicare is better than nearly all private health insurance plans.

[mmonk]

3. Yes it is. But both parties pretend it would be a tax bill and jobs

killer on behalf of their corporate benefactors.

[PufPuf23]

5. Bingo!

I have little doubt that a CBO or economic analysis that included the economy as a whole rather than Federal budget would indicate that National Health Care would be a stimulus and the Senate Bill economically regressive.

There would be stimulus in the change itself.

Cheaper education and more health care providers and facilites would also be jobs and stimulus.

Small business and the self-employed would benefit. There is no moral reason and no economic reason other than servitude to tie health care to employment. There could still be private health care for the wealthy over and above a National Health Care system.

Health care providers would trade a cheaper education for a period or career of public service and lower wages for those at the top except for "super stars" -- to use Obama's sports star analogy -- that chose totally private once their public service requirement for education was satisfied.

[daleanime]

6. It would be a great start...

O8)

[anonymous171]

8. It's also a lot shorter than the current corporate cluster fuck

http://johnconyers.com/hr676text

[ashling]

11. My most recent LTTE sent 2/4

2/4/2010

Create Jobs By Helping Business.
After a year of obstruction and obfuscation on healthcare, Republicans say that we should just dump it and start over – we should focus our energy on jobs instead. But now Mitch McConnell is threatening to filibuster the jobs bill, too.
Why not drop them both and give the Republicans something they can support: a bill that will create jobs by cutting costs and regulation for business and reduce business’s responsibility to workers. They should love that.
We could do this and at the same time contain healthcare costs and enhance national security.
It’s called Single Payer Health Insurance.