A challenge to anyone who opposes Medicare for All

It was very little. 2 minutes of bumper stickers at the beginning. Still bumper stickers 34 minutes in. At what point does the relevent information start?

 

Watch the whole thing.

 

How about just telling me when the bumper stickers end and the information starts.

 

I can tell you're not interested.

 

I think there are some good arguments for health coverage for all in the U.S. but I'm not completely committed to the idea.

It seems to me you are failing to communicate your ideas here because you are unwilling to summarize the video. You are appealing to those who are opposed to the idea of health care for all and your approach to this is to try and convince them to watch a 1 hour and 47 minute video with opposing views to their own. You need to give a little on that and explain a few things about what makes Sanders plan good. If I am completely opposed to something you are not going to change my mind by requiring me to watch a two hour movie about your ideas.

Just my two cents.

Rich

 

No, im not interested in bumper stickers. This is your video, why not just say at what minute mark the actual info starts.

Or at least tell me how much they expect this to cost on a yearly basis.

 

I guess someone needs to teach you how videos work. You would just do what I would do, so why do you ask me to do your work for you? You want someone else to do your work, yet you say you're against your idea of socialism. That's a contradiction, given what you think socialism is.

Just click, nudging the video progress along, until it gets to the point you want.

It hasn't been run by the CBO yet. But common sense would tell you the cost would be significantly less. What country pays the most per capita for healthcare? About how much more is that cost than it is for each of the next two highest countries? What is paid for by our premiums that isn't paid for in those other countries?

 

The Sanders plan is very similar to what was proposed for California, and they dumped it because of cost (in one of the bluest states in the nation). If California couldn't make it work, I suspect there is something wrong with the model. That's what common sense should tell you.

 

Fair enough even if I disagree. I think everyone knows we pay more for healthcare than other countries do. And everyone knows we are the only country that depends entirely on private businesses to provide services and coverage for private profit. The rest is details, which can be very important, interesting, and persuasive. And the video provides too much to cover.

Another big issue is that whenever a poster has a good video, if s/he posts the salient points, nay-sayers pounce on one or two things they think they can punch holes in easiest and they never watch the video, so summarizing is a waste of time. Those who are interested in solving problems rather than just fighting and arguing will watch the video.

But look back. This is the 33rd post in this thread and I don't see one that isn't an objection to the THREAD or a complaint about it. NOTHING of discussion of the content of the video. Posters don't want to discover things and solve problems. They want to argue and fight. What a sad commentary on humanity.

 

OK I'll give you MY take on that. How about a 25% reduction in the per-capita annual cost?

Here's how to do it:
Duplicate/copy every aspect of the Canadian system and then spend 50% more to make sure we have the very best healthcare possible.

 

Does that copying include an approximately 20% wage cute for nurses and 50% pay cut for GP doctors?

And why wont you tell me when the meat of.your video starts? Or is the entire video an unending compilation of bumper stickers

 

Typical "progressive" BS post - you claim to present evidence as if you are unbiased, then caveat your post with the claim that any person who disagrees with you is irrational, dishonest, and brainwashed.

You are an utter absolute FAIL.

 

I gave my answer. I'm not an expert but I know Canadians don't have a problem with their care, and if you would watch the video you would see that neither do their doctors and nurses.

Because I know you want to be spoon-fed and I'm not interested in wasting my time on you.

No, it isn't.

 

I keep asking when the actual information starts and you refuse to answer. Leads me to believe the entire video is mindless bumper stickers.

Canadians do have a problem with long wait times and doctor shortages that are even worse than ours.

 

Why would anyone watch a propaganda video, when they can read the text of the Bill?

(1) IN GENERAL.—No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution. Private physicians, private clinics, and private health care providers shall continue to operate as private entities, but are prohibited from being investor owned.

(2) CONVERSION OF INVESTOR-OWNED PROVIDERS.—For-profit providers of care opting to participate shall be required to convert to not-for-profit status.

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) In General.—It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

There are several issues involving the constitutionality of Medicare-for-All.

The Urban Institute debunks your claim in its analysis:

In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default...The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf

Just so there's no doubt in anyone's mind:

Urban Institute, Leading Liberal Think Tank, Marks 20th Birthday

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-12/news/mn-7095_1_urban-institute

The Institute was shaped and molded by good men like Kermit Gordon, McGeorge Bundy, Irwin Miller, Arjay Miller, Richard Neustadt, Cyrus Vance, and Robert McNamara. They worked not as Democrats or Republicans--but as Americans.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=28822

Perhaps you don't understand economics involved.

"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending."

Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, page 33.

In duplicating the Canadian system, that does that include duplicating the waiting lists?

However, these highlights from the Canadian Institute of Healthcare Information's (CIHI) annual update of Wait Times for Priority Procedures in Canada are little more than feel-good distractions from the real story: Canada's health-care system is failing to deliver timely care to patients.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus-barua-/canada-health-care_b_9646872.html

 

2:21

If you would watch the video you would find that this is completely incorrect. They DO NOT have long wait times or doctor shortages. Our health outcomes are significantly worse than theirs, so how can they be so bad?
Listen, I'm donee with you on this. Either watch it or don't.

 

So the Canadian government is lying?

 

Why would anyone read your propaganda when they could watch a video that interviews experts on healthcare?

Sez you. Are you a constitutional scholar or a constitutional attorney?

What are the assumptions? I'm trying to see how they made their error. Did they take into account a complete end to current payroll taxes for health coverage and for Medicare? Did they take into account an end to employer medical plans and the savings there? Did they take into account the end of all existing premium costs?

Bottom line: We pay much more than any other country, and unlike them, we pay for corporate lobbying, ads, profits, high salaries, and high administrative costs, plus unreasonably high pay for top medical professionals, and more. Studies show, for example, that hospitals buy MRI machines in order to put themselves in a high position in terms of reputation for technology and for image. But they don't have a need to use that very, very expensive equipment enough to be able to amortize the cost well. So they either increase their fees on other services to make up for the loss, or they press their doctors to send patients for MRIs whenever it can be minimally justified. But a solution to all that would be to establish central MRI facilities for all area hospitals and medical facilities to use.

Fee-for-service is a problem as it increases reliance on unnecessary services.

These are just the more widely known problems with our system.

Perhaps you don't understand that overall, the US is 37th in the quality of healthcare. Why should we be paying top prices for inferior outcomes? We are one of the worst among developed industrialized countries for infant mortality for Pete's sake!

Oh, ok. Canada. Canada's health outcomes are no worse than ours, and are just a bit better:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#638e7cbb576f

I submit that Canada would not need to double their healthcare spending to achieve wait times equivalent to ours. How much more do you suspect it might cost them to do that? My point was made on this in a previous post. Duplicate Canada's system to cut our costs in half. Then to make sure we have the very best healthcare possible, spend maybe as much as 50% more. That would give us a cost reduction of 25% from what we now have.

 

Thanks for the response.

With such "sad commentary on humanity" maybe humanity doesn't deserve health care. As with everything, more progress would be made with less trashing and bashing and more actual discussion.

I have given some thought to the idea of universal health care, maybe not as much as I would if I needed health care, but some.

I can see the idea behind universal health care. We have things now in the U.S. that are provided for everyone: public schools, public roads, military protection. So why not public health care?

But don't we really already have universal health care? I mean it is there for the purchase. If a person can't afford it aren't there Government programs to take care of them?

I know this is a rather simplistic view but you get my point.

 

Rand Paul has some funny ideas.

 

We have a for-profit system and that is the whole problem and it has always produced a section of the population who has no health insurance. So the thought that we already have universal healthcare is incorrect.

 

The only problem I have with 'medicare for all' is that Im forced to participate in it even if I dont use it. I oppose every form of that system, and nothing is going to convince me to support expanding it further.

 

The alternative is for you to rely on your own money for healthcare, and then when you are in a wreck or fall off your roof or have a tree fall on you, you go to the emergency room where you rely on our money.

You cannot predict what healthcare you will need in the future or when. You cannot predict what auto accident you may be in tomorrow, so you are required to have auto insurance to protect us. Same with health coverage.

 

In some states you are only required to have liability insurance. If its ur own fault, then ur on ur own. Thats how liberty is sposed to be.

If you want a social safety net, you can buy into one voluntarily. But forcing others to cover it with (for) you is not in the spirit of individual liberty.

 

OK so how do we protect ourselves from your negligence when you go to the emergency room? How do I protect my liberty against your failings?