Explain to me how you would implement Medicare For All (single payer)
Alright dumbass, since you are too fucking focused on taxing me to death, I’ll tell you. Businesses have rights. I should have the right not to wait forever to see a doctor or get a transplant or whatever else. And yeah, that’s a problem up in Canada.. And let me tell ya something motherfucker, my brother would have DIED on single payer waiting for a kidney transplant. DIED. I really want to find you’re stalking self right now and beat your fucking ass with a metal baseball bat and make your ass wait months to see a doctor. Hope you don’t die. You want to tax the rich to fund all this shit? Why? You fuckers want it so badly, tax yourselves. You already pushed the ACA through, isn’t that fucking enough? Now you want to ration care, ration meds, and make people wait an insanely long time to get rationed care? You can’t even build and maintain a fucking website so what the hell makes you think you can provide single payer WITH minimum wait times WITH high quality care WITHOUT rationing.
Fuck off, bitch.
Businesses are made up of people. Real people. I’m in one, it’s small, we don’t have a lot of guys but it’s still a business. When do people give up their rights just because they start or run a business?
They don’t. As stated, businesses would be saving money under this system because they would no longer be required to provide healthcare for their employees
Um, Employers currently are not “required” to provide healthcare for their employees. It’s just an industry standard benefit for full time employees because it is tax-deductible wages. Neither the company nor the individual pay tax on money deducted to pay for health insurance from each monthly paycheck.
Naturally this pisses some people off and they want that money fully taxed or even doubly taxed on each end.
You are still not addressing the issue of violating the rights of businesses and the most fundamental right a business has is that the Government has no right to tell someone what they can and can’t do with their business, what products they can and can’t sell, and what they can and can’t do for their employees as benefits.
Don’t bring up consumer protection laws and public safety regulations. If you do I will crush you so don’t even bother trying that route.
Do you not know what this Affordable Care Act that you’ve been complaining about does or…? Employers with 50 or more employees are definitely required to provide healthcare to their employees. If we were to give everyone access to Medicare then that would be completely unnecessary.
I guess we disagree on a fundamental level about your second point. I don’t subscribe to your libertarian philosophy and I see no problem with placing taxes on businesses. If Medicare were expanded to cover everyone then private insurers would be able to run their businesses without regulation, as everyone would already be given basic coverage and the market could dictate what extra services people wanted. There are no rights being violated here.
The ACA isn’t in effect for employers. It currently is only about to start violating people’s rights starting january first at which it will start imposing a punitive fine for the high crime of “not purchasing a good or service” which is unconstitutional.
Since the ACA isn’t in effect for employers, it can be reasonably understood that employers are still acting without that law, as if it doesn’t exist. Therefore, they are not legally obligated to provide health insurance and they never have been. They are only obligated to provide worker’s compensation as a form of liability insurance.
I’m not a libertarian. Once upon a time, a system was put in place that made medical costs a tax-deductible item as often it is an item you do not purchase but merely an insurance premium. Insurance works best and people get the best service when insurance companies have more money to disburse to claimants. That’s why the tax-deductible status of health insurance premiums exists.
There are people that don’t like that. There are people out there that don’t like that I am saving $106 a month in taxes because of the $424 deduction from my paycheck to pay my health insurance premium. These same people don’t like that a business saves $110 a month in taxes by providing me this health care plan as a benefit. I’m young and unmarried right now so this coverage is overkill so at least it’s nice I’m not getting hit with that extra tax burden on something I am not even using. Right now, $400 at a time I am making the system work. Remove that tax benefit form me and I will ask to be removed from the system and get my full salary because it’s not worth getting soaked for money I never see enter my bank account.
As for your disagreement that rights are being violated:
A 100% medicare expansion is a nationalization of the healthcare system. It eliminates primary insurance as a type of business people are allowed to run. By doing that the Federal government would be forcing companies to stop providing a service they are currently providing to customers. This is a service that is not violating any current laws. This is invasive regulation into the private sector and that is where the violation occurs. The violation is already occurring with Obamacare’s roll out and the cancellations of the healthcare plans that don’t “meet the minimum requirements of the affordable care act.” That part is completely unconstitutional. The Congress can’t mandate that all cars be AWD, FR, or FF, or that they should all have a certain ground clearance, or they should have a number of cupholders or not have that number to prevent childhood obesity because what 8 year old needs 3 cup holders? (said by no one who has ever been in a minivan with an 8 year old ever)
The very idea of nationalizing any part of the private sector is an implicit violation of the rights of anyone operating in that theater. Just because they’re a business doesn’t mean they’re not made of people. You may have never seen one in your life but I have already seen dozens of 1 man businesses where the owner is the sole proprietor and is assisted maybe by his wife or another friend. The medical field has hundreds of these small practices. When you nationalize any system you destroy every small business that operated in the system beforehand and shuffle all their business to the few super-corporations that were chosen to handle the nationalization effort. This is always what happens.
It’s been nearly four years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. Industry leaders began restructuring their businesses a long time ago and will continue to do so until the employer mandate takes effect in 2015. Your lecture on the history of employee benefits is outdated. The fact of the matter is that our health care system absolutely needs to be reformed and every person who lives in this country needs to have access to affordable healthcare if we want to catch up with the rest of the modern world. What I’m arguing is that the expansion of Medicare to cover everyone is a better alternative than the Affordable Care Act. You’re arguing that we don’t need to change things at all, which is a violation of the human right to health. Even under the current system, though, studies conducted in California by the business friendly Lewin Group concluded that "[e]mployers who currently offer health benefits would realize average savings [with 100% Medicare] of 16% compared to the current system”. Employers who don’t offer any sort of healthcare benefits would find that they are increasing spending with taxes but most of those employers won’t exist a year from now.
Now, you’re claiming that a 100% Medicare expansion “eliminates primary insurance as a type of business people are allowed to run”, but that simply isn’t true. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. A single payer model can coexist with a private health system just fine - that’s exactly what’s going on in Australia right now and their health care is among the most efficient in the world. In fact, in Australia the government has added incentives to boost interest in the private market. There’s a tax break in place for citizens who own private health insurance and government subsidies are available to make it more affordable. The Australian government encourages people to buy the private options because the public sector benefits when the private sector thrives. Patients get all of the benefits that our system in the US has, such as fast access to doctors, but the cost of pharmaceuticals has been driven down and every person has access to the most basic medical attention. Competitively viable businesses will survive whereas others will fail. There’s no implicit right to operate a business without competition and if your competition is free healthcare for provided by the government everyone then you need to find a way to make sure your business offers something better than that. Their private sector offers much more comprehensive care as a result.