Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 2 months ago

If I’m taxed more to pay for Medicaid For All, what will I get that I don’t currently get through insurance my employer currently pays for?

53 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago
    Best Answer

    Single payer health insurance typically require longer waits per appointment, longer waits to obtain treatment and less choice regarding doctors you can choose. As you mentioned, you will pay higher taxes to receive these changes.

    • Professor
      Lv 7
      2 months agoReport

      They do not require longer waits for doctor visits. The only thing that might have a longer wait is non critical surgery. Ask the people of Canada or the UK if they would give up single payer in favor of private insurance. Go ahead, ask them!

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    obamaa care was his way to get hard working whites to pay for black free health care

    • Frank W
      Lv 4
      2 months agoReport

      No it was the Democrat way to CONTROL the Public's Healthcare

  • 2 months ago

    First its medicare not medicaid. The goveremnent has stayed out of it. Only to have people go bankrupt when they get sick. To answer your question. Your employer would offer a supplemental policy . You would then have 100 percent coverage. Instead of 80/20. Employer might charge a little like 50 a month for a family

  • 2 months ago

    A bill form the parasites for their health care. Oh wait, you already get that if you work for a living, don't you?

    • Frank W
      Lv 4
      2 months agoReport

      I'm 62, I work 40 to 65 hours a week my employer offers No Insurance No Retirement Benefits so being white I'll have to pay!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE HELPING TO PAY MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR SOME LAZY PERSON

  • 2 months ago

    The right to pay for the medical bills of people who spend their money on themselves.

  • 2 months ago

    The satisfaction of knowing your tax dollars are going to get medical coverage for those too lazy to work and pay for it on their own.

    • out2lunch4now2
      Lv 7
      2 months agoReport

      brother_in_magic, I DEFY you to cite the part of the US Constitution that allows the federal government to interfere in health care. BETCHA CAN'T!!

  • 2 months ago

    If individuals and companies were made to pay taxes, you wouldn’t need to be taxed more for Medicare for all. What you would get if it were comparable to some other countries would be the ability to see a doctor whenever you really needed. I pay fir healthcare through my employer , it’s not free. They also don’t pay completely for anything I may need. I also have deductibles. My family in Europe have none of these. Everything is paid for 200%. You also don’t have doctors trumping up things to make you pay for that you don’t need. You also have reasonable costs for medicine. None of that has come from private insurance companies who have people there who make money by denying claims. I could go in but I think those are enough reasons to get rid of companies who let people die by not covering their expenses. No one goes bankrupt by paying hospital bills there, oh wait I said I was done. 😉

    • out2lunch4now2
      Lv 7
      2 months agoReport

      I DEFY you to cite the Article or AMendment and Section of the COnsitjutotin that allows the federal government to interfere in health care. BETCHA CAN'T!! No, the "general welfare clause" does NOT do it.

  • Nick
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    The government needs to stay out of healthcare, period.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    You’ll get higher taxes, less choice and longer waits. Otherwise it will be essentially the same.

  • Huh?
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    The proposals on the table are for Medicare for all, not Medicaid. How can I be expected to believe you would understand my answer when you have already proven yourself a moron.

    • Andy F
      Lv 7
      2 months agoReport

      Is calling people "morons" a good strategy, for getting your point across? I really don't think so, although I may be wrong. I think it's better to point out the flaws in the other person's argument without insulting anyone. It might be easier to accept among people who disagree with you.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.