The Truth About Medicare for All Trump Doesn’t Want You to Know | Opinions | NowThis

Medicare for All could save us $2 trillion in its first 10 years — but Trump and his enablers keep pushing these 5 lies to stop it.
» Subscribe to NowThis:

In political news, Medicare for All is set to be the biggest helath care issue since the Affordable Care Act. A single payer system that could provide health insurance for self employed people, unemployed people, and every other American will surely be a key issue in the 2020 election. At the recent Bernie Sanders town hall on Fox News, we saw that many people are interested in Medicare for All, explained as a government funded health care system, hence the self explanatory name Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders is among many 2020 presidential candidates and 2020 democrats including Joe Biden. There will definitely be a medicare for all debate among the 2020 democrats. But what is the medicare for all cost? The truth is Medicare for All saves money, but Donald Trump doesn't want you to know that.

#MedicareForAll #Trump #RobertReich #Healthcare

Connect with NowThis
» Like us on Facebook:
» Tweet us on Twitter:
» Follow us on Instagram:
» Find us on Snapchat Discover:

NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to date on all the latest in trending news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and breaking news stories, we’re delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We live where you live.

@nowthisnews

The Truth About Medicare for All Trump Doesn't Want You to Know | Opinions | NowThis

52 thoughts on “The Truth About Medicare for All Trump Doesn’t Want You to Know | Opinions | NowThis

    • Logical Conservative you conveniently didn’t mention due process, or the right to an attorney for indigent defendants. Two examples of exactly what you said is immoral: a right that requires taking from others to provide. So either you can retract that statement and then argue against universal coverage on a different basis or say that you disagree with the founders and constitution. That’s the logical fallacy. In terms of it being a right though, it’s pretty irrelevant imo. For one, we functionally guarantee the most expensive form of care, emergency rooms, as a right as it is. For two, as I said other rights you presumably endorse require the same principle of taxing others to provide.

      And no, you can’t say the same thing about food. What are the characteristics I listed, supported by such lefty ideologues as Milton Friedman and a host of other right wing economists, that make healthcare different? Price elasticity, and information asymmetry. Unlike in healthcare, there’s a much higher degree of price elasticity because there’s a massive amount of substitution when it comes to food: if prices on steak are high people might buy chicken instead. If prices on steak are super low the usual consumers of chicken will often respond by substituting steak. There is no drastic information asymmetry between a chicken farmer and someone who needs to eat, unlike a neurosurgeon and a layperson with a brain injury. You may notice I didn’t give some stereotypically lefty emotional based argument, I gave you a rational one based on unanimously agreed upon economic concepts.

      So you didn’t contend with any of my arguments at all whatsoever. I wish you would. The truth is that conservatives that are honest and educated don’t believe these kind of fast food arguments that they may think are useful to manipulate the masses because they’re so obviously indefensible intellectually. The only way to maintain that position is to make it on moral terms: taxation is theft, redistributing income to guarantee people healthcare or due process is therefore immoral, and shouldn’t be done. Ok, I know anarcho capitalists, and if that’s your position fine. But don’t pretend that your positions aren’t blatantly in contradiction of each other.

      Then you go into saying really it’s about policy preferences. Well, Medicare for all doesn’t mean fixed prices. For one, people are free to buy supplemental insurance. For another, doctors and consumers are free to do cash transactions outside of any insurance. For three, some portions of Medicare allow the company to take Medicare reimbursement and then charge the rest of the price in cash (like my family’s business in medical devices).

      But most importantly, *we have decades of evidence from around the world that in fact fixing some healthcare prices to some extent results in cheaper high quality care for more people* . Those old BS claims about how everyone in Canada just hates their system and waits forever when we get it right away have been debunked, which is why you don’t see those lies much any more. Even with private insurance, many kinds of care have longer waits in the US than in those other countries, and vice versa. *If you want to argue against the govt mandating universal coverage using LOGIC you need to contend with the evidence* .

      So pick a side. Either go the deontological route and become an anarcho capitalist, or take the consequentialist route and contend with the mountains of evidence and decades of capitalist economic theory that suggest govt must take a bigger role in the healthcare market than other sectors even to get equally good outcomes, much less better outcomes than we have today.

    • +F Z Due process doesn’t count, because it is necessary block before the government can take away YOUR OTHER RIGHTS. (sigh) You mention that the price of steak and the price of chicken being different. That’s fascinating. With gubment’ healthcare, there’s only chicken. If it’s rotten, you still have to take it. With private healthcare, if you don’t like the chicken, you can go buy the steak, instead.
      Contend with the evidence? You mean like rationing, budget shortfalls, death panels, and being forced to wait 6-12 months for lifesaving surgery? Sure. I’ll contend with that. In no case, ever, has government provided a cheaper, better service, in any industry, than the free market has.

    • Logical Conservative I will add too That in terms of rights: do you think if your family member was raped or robbed you shouldn’t have a right to police services? Property rights are only a right insofar as your local police force chooses to/is funded well enough to enforce them? Because you seem to be saying govt can mandate whether something is a right or not (I tend to agree, at least on the pragmatic level that’s all that really matters).

      Or again you can take the deep right deontological position in which case rights come from natural law, which Is philosophical and debatable, but even by that standard the mere existence of LLCs violates – limited liability corporations inherently say that for the purposes of convenience, economic growth etc, if you violate other people’s property rights you don’t have to fully compensate them, due to a legal entity the govt decided to create. LLCs are inherently a violation of property rights and natural law. I still think they should exist tho.

      But the point of this is not to ream you as an individual, my point here is that the mainstream “conservative” arguments around these issues are objectively and extremely fallacious and absurd. Again, this is why actual conservatism doesn’t actually support the common arguments for right wing policy. Conservative ideology was functionally killed long ago by extreme and well funded right wingers. And that’s not even to get into the incredible amount of govt intervention it would require to provide anything even close to equality of opportunity, one of those conservative principles supposedly still upheld but clearly LONG long ago abandoned.

    • +Logical Conservative I guess it’s moral to put people into bankruptcy because of medical bills.Not an empathetic thing to do in my opinion.

    • +Linda Hidalgo Healthcare is expensive because of government meddling that has eliminated competition. More government meddling is not the answer. Competition would drive down costs.

  1. Good Healthcare as M4A enables more people to work and serve their families and would make the US far stronger. They are no worried about bills anymore, they can see the doctor if it is needed this also prevent expensively emergency cost and cost for hospitalisation.

    • +Darth Black and Mild Cool, what did you mean to say about young adults having access to healthcare so they could be healthy enough to go do their jobs? What did you mean to say instead of “feasting?”

    • +Darth Black and Mild
      Wtf. You’re dumb. Degrading to their level. Have fun being Hitler but keep in mind, the liberals forces defeated the fascist forces and we will do so again. Move out of America if you’re into this kind of perverse thinking

    • +Darth Black and Mild we have more guns then you. Private citizens collectively have more bullets then the US armed forces. Conservatives will not bow to far left fascists. My mexican friends and I want the wall to be built. Whats so bad about that. We dont want future generations to have to worry about the things current mexican immigrants have to worry about. Trump 2020! Build the wall!

    • the dude first you do NOT have more guns and ammo. Second what you lack in arms is compounded by what you lack in intellect. I hope one of your “Mexican friends” buries you in a shallow unmarked grave.

    • +Darth Black and Mild i think your wrong on the armed forces of the private citizens of the USA. Hispanics hate illegal immigration. So no that wont happen

  2. Total misrepresentation of the Republicans here! They do have a healthcare plan that is very simple and effective:

    The rich get richer while the poor stay sicker!

  3. We need Medicare-For-All/a single payer system in the U.S.! What is more “Pro-Life” than ensuring that every person in America has guaranteed affordable healthcare? Also, of we all had access to basic healthcare, we would all have the “freedom” to live long lives and rarely have to worry about medical bankruptcies. Furthermore, if some of us need additional healthcare than Medicare, then we have the “choice” to get additional insurance, but for others Medicare would be more than enough. Finally, if every other developed country (Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand) can implement this and save money, why can’t the United States do the same and help “Make America Great Again” for everyone at least on the issue of healthcare?

    • Jesse torres
      google the HOLODOMOR…..Or Mao’s great famine 40 million died Chinese …..More people were killed during the 20th century to Socialist/Marxist/Communist Ideology….Then both World Wars COMBINED…

    • Jesse torres
      During the middle of the 19th century socialist called for Eugenics in many places……..And were openly pushing genocide…………………Fredrick engles and Karl marx and many socialist all plotting there socialist utopia in England…..BERNARD SHAW……”If your not Producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more then clearly we cant use the big organization of society For the purpose of keeping you alive”………PROFOUND Socialist

    • +Christopher Fairfield your argument is asinine single payer is working all over the world get over your paranoia about socialism

  4. *When Mike Pence was in Congress he opposed passage of Medicare’s Part D, the drug benefit,* and complained that Bush’s proposal to partially privatize Social Security was not enough; *Pence proposed deeper cuts to the Social Security program than President Bush.*

    McConnell, usually careful not to rock the boat before the midterm elections, did not set out to tell the electorate that *Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts were high on the Republican agenda.* It appeared to be a slip as he was caught off guard defending the Republican tax cut against a mid-October U.S. Department of the Treasury report attributing the highest deficit in six years to the Republican 2017 “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.”

    *Just to be clear, the Republican tax cuts of 2017 are driving the deficit.* *Spending more than revenue causes a deficit.*

  5. The party of “pro-life” isn’t so concerned about taking care of those in need of care. But, let’s hear them out on wars and the ultra rich…

    • Toussaints’ Wrath corporate dems like Pelosi are working against Medicare for All also. It’s bad enough we have to fight gop, but we have to fight members of the dem establishment also.

  6. england , australia and new zealand have always had medicare , it’s free health care . no matter what surgery or doctor visit , its free .

  7. Medicare for all would costs the paper work and wait times increase administrate cost this I know living it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *