Universal Healthcare

So you oppose a State having a single payer program because you think the case is already made? From the people who told me that Obamacare would reduce everyone's premiums by $2500 a year...

Medicare pays 30% to 40% lower provider and facility rates than private insurance, so it should be cheaper. What we don't know is if an entire American health care system can tolerate those massive cuts to doctors and hospitals, particularly since so many hospitals are having financial difficulties.

That's why I want this tested, because you telling me that Medicare is cheaper than private insurance (for the sake of argument I'll concede without looking it up) doesn't tell me a thing about if the healthcare system can handle it.

Unless that's why you don't want it tested in a State...

 

There's always gofundme if you're feeling like you want to help.

 

If we can't cut spending elsewhere we can't have universal health care. End of story.

 

I don't claim to understand the CA proposal that failed last year (and I believe hasn't made it back so far this year).

I don't believe ANY US system will ever eliminate private insurance. I have Medicare and I have a supplemental private insurance policy that fills holes. It's totally transparent to me, as providers deal with Medicare, who passes stuff to my private policy if they don't cover it. I've never been denied anything, and my personal healthcare doesn't come cheap - lol!

Almost all other first world countries allow such private policies that add coverage.

I call it double taxation when employees and corporations combine to buy policies for their employees, AND they contribute through income tax. That's like THREE paths of employee work contribution going toward healthcare. I fudged and called it "double", as the two corporate paths come as one, essentially.


I don't want to "get rid of" private for profit healthcare. I'd like to limit it to suplemental policies that cover stuff that is not otherwise covered.

I do NOT believe that "Medicare for all" has to cover everything. Today, Medicare doesn't cover everything.

Cost IS an issue, very obviously. We have to be flexible enough to covere everyone in a reasonable enough way while allowing those with wealth to fill in the gaps for themselves.

Today we have Medicare, Medicaid, VA, for profit insurance, employee coverage (requiring corporation management of healthcare plans), individual pay as you go (which has various pricing structures). We have government and providers covering for indigent care. We have bankruptcy.

And, we still don't have everyone covered!!

Look how many different management schemes that is!! It's ridiculous. We should just cover everyone with some acceptable level and then let indiviuals purchase buy supplemental policies if they are wealthy and see more to want.

 

We already spend FAR more than ANY other first world country, and we don't provide provably better care.

I think you have to be careful in identifying what you think the additional cost might be.

Do you think US corporations would be advantaged by not having to manage healthcare plans for employees?

 

Actually, the lack of it is an abiding embarrassment to the richest and most powerful nation on earth. You need it, and you need it NOW.

 

Well we don't always get what we want.

California's plan eliminated private insurance and so does Bernie's Medicare for All plan. Since Bernie's plan is the only federal single payer/universal plan that is actually a bill instead of just a few talking points, when people say Medicare for All, I assume that's what they mean, and yes, that means your supplemental plan will be illegal.

And we have no idea what such massive cuts (as in both bills) would do to our entire healthcare system, which is why I would rather let a state try it out first. The fact that so many leftists who support single payer on this forum also oppose states having their own plan make me think they don't have confidence in their own concept.

 

You are describing Sanders plan perfectly.

 

I don't think it's feasible to do it at the state level - nor desirable.
Everything needed to implement it already exists at the federal level. Why would you want to recreate all that.
Just the removal of middle man profit is big bucks.

 

That doesn't seem possible, legally speaking. How can privately purchased insurances be outlawed? And why would it be outlawed? To what purpose?

We've had national health here for decades, and have always had the option to buy private insurance. Same in the UK, and Canada.

 

If you want to run a smaller experiment, just allow people over 55 to buy in at cost.
It's enough cheaper that there is plenty of room for fee adjustments. The rest of the surgeons we can retrain to be butchers.

 

If we raise taxes much more we wont be the richest country.

Abortion and porn and drug use are far bigger embarrassments

 

I figured you might want to do it at the state level because half the country doesn't believe you, and democrats had their chance with obamacare and blew it.

In other words, either you do it at the state level, or nothing. It's not going to happen at the federal level. I'd think you guys would realize this by now since every 4 years since I can remember, the democrats keep trying to throw it into the national debate as if we haven't already debated it endlessly, and even gave it a go with Obama.

 

We pay a 2% tax levy. What sort of money did you think was involved? And how can 2% be more than the insanely expensive health insurance you have to buy?

 

What do surgeons have to do with it?

 

A two-tier system, I believe. You got your nice hospitals with private rooms and buxom nurses in miniskirts for the upper crust, and then you've got the B plan for the hoi polloi that consists of spending your days in a gurney outside on the sidewalk because there's no room for you inside.

 

These are deal breakers for me..

It has to be fully funded, no deficit spending

Mostly paid from current revenue

Government is payer only. All health decisions are made between you and your doctor . No government control. However this is for preventive and life saving medicine only.
Not for anything elective.

 

He said they were gonna quit. I say let them. I don't think they will.

 

Why would they? What does it have to do with them?

 

Absolutely not.

AND, regardless of the number of Dems in congress, I do not believe the Sanders plan will get accepted.

Herding Democrats is like herding cats. We see Republicans falling into almost perfect lockstep for YEARS, regardless of how crazy and even traitorous the ideas of the president may be. There is NO possibility of getting Dems to do that.

Under Obama with healthcare, Dems put together committees in the Senate and the House and spent more than a year on design.

With immigration, Dems put together a committee in the Senate and put together a bill that the committee then negotiated with the House.

These committees had full representation of both parties. With healthcare, once legislation got to the point where all change required the amendment process, Republicans proposed more than 160 amendments that were voted into the bill.

Democrats aren't going to flip to Republican partisan methodology. You can vote for Bernie and KNOW that Republicans will be present when anything is designed, because that's how it is supposed to work. (Not that I think you'll vote for Bernie - lol).

 

It's never been for non-medically necessary procedures/treatment. Govt won't pay for plastic surgery, or elective caesarians, etc etc.

 

They won't get paid as much with Medicare. Poor babies.

 

Medicare today IS involved in decisions of what is paid for - just like for-profit insurance companies and employee policies.

If you want something more than that, you would need to find a way to pay for it - a suplemental policy, out of pocket, call a friend, whatever.

 

Not all surgeons would "quit". They would simply find jobs where they can make the most money. This would naturally mean working for hospitals for the rich. The surgeons who partied their way through medical school and internship would still be available - assuming that nobody is going to be drug testing them before surgery.

 

Medicare does put downward pressure on pricing.

They need to be allowed to do that with medications, too.