Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced

[mrbigstuff]

I agree that this is an incremental step toward overall true public health insurance. Perhaps we'll get there one day. Or century.

[Sarcany]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=SteveO]
Health care is a human right.

I think this is an overstatement; hyperbole.

"Rights" are things you have inherently and which should not be diminished nor taken from you.
There's no such thing as a "right" at all then.

Name a "right" that you have inherently and not by the grace of society and family.

[RgrF]

You have a right to be pedantic.

[Bill in NC]

C(-)ris wrote:
Not sure why we would need to extended it beyond retirement age. You should be working till you are 65 unless you have a disability or other qualifying event in which case you would be eligible for that reason.

We don't need to give people who decide they want to retire early Medicare. They made the choice and funding their own healthcare should have been part of their calculations to decide if they could retire early.

There are plenty of people out there retired well before age 65.

And many can manage their mAGI for large subsidies...one "early retirement" blogger I follow so far in 2021 has paid under $150/month for ACA coverage for his entire family but with the latest stimulus legislation expects to pay $0/month going forward.

That's a heck of a lot cheaper than paying even just Medicare Part B premiums.

[DeusxMac]

Sarcany wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=SteveO]
Health care is a human right.

I think this is an overstatement; hyperbole.

"Rights" are things you have inherently and which should not be diminished nor taken from you.
There's no such thing as a "right" at all then.

Name a "right" that you have inherently and not by the grace of society and family.
You trivialize the distinction. Of course another person could kill you and deny you all your “rights” no matter how anyone defines or categorizes them.

“To say that there is widespread acceptance of the principle of human rights is not to say that there is complete agreement about the nature and scope of such rights or, indeed, their definition.”

[vision63]

Bill in NC wrote:
[quote=C(-)ris]
Not sure why we would need to extended it beyond retirement age. You should be working till you are 65 unless you have a disability or other qualifying event in which case you would be eligible for that reason.

We don't need to give people who decide they want to retire early Medicare. They made the choice and funding their own healthcare should have been part of their calculations to decide if they could retire early.

There are plenty of people out there retired well before age 65.

And many can manage their mAGI for large subsidies...one "early retirement" blogger I follow so far in 2021 has paid under $150/month for ACA coverage for his entire family but with the latest stimulus legislation expects to pay $0/month going forward.

That's a heck of a lot cheaper than paying even just Medicare Part B premiums.
That sounds incredible.

[Sarcany]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Sarcany]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=SteveO]
Health care is a human right.

I think this is an overstatement; hyperbole.

"Rights" are things you have inherently and which should not be diminished nor taken from you.
There's no such thing as a "right" at all then.

Name a "right" that you have inherently and not by the grace of society and family.
You trivialize the distinction. Of course another person could kill you and deny you all your “rights” no matter how anyone defines or categorizes them.

“To say that there is widespread acceptance of the principle of human rights is not to say that there is complete agreement about the nature and scope of such rights or, indeed, their definition.”
Exactly.

So, rights are what you and your society make of them in the moment.

Maybe a "right" for this purpose is an obligation of your government to perform or to forbear from performing an act.

We're an affluent nation with the capability of providing subsidized high quality health care to the population without much difficulty. In fact, most studies show that it would benefit most of the economy, eliminating the majority of bankruptcies, putting more money into free markets, saving overhead on hospital billing (which typically pads about 40% of a hospital bill), and promoting businesses large and small by taking the burden of healthcare off of their staff and budgets.

It's inhumane of us and wrongheaded to NOT have a single-payer system. Our government should implement a single-payer system because access to high quality health care should be a right. (And will be once implemented.)

[August West]

RgrF wrote:
You have a right to be pedantic.

miley-laughing001:

[August West]

Exactly.

So, rights are what you and your society make of them in the moment.

I read the posted (yet not cited) quote in the same manner.

[C(-)ris]

Sarcany wrote:
Our government should implement a single-payer system because access to high quality health care should be a right. (And will be once implemented.)

It shouldn't be a guaranteed right, but everyone should be able to earn the right through employment regardless of if they are working a minimum wage job or make $100k a year.

There are ALWAYS jobs that need to be done and people that are hiring for them. ALWAYS. People might not want to do the jobs or they might not like the pay, but the jobs are there. If tying Universal Healthcare to having ANY job fills those positions and gets people off unemployment that is a win.