Attacks on Medicare For All guided by lobbyists

[Economy 52,935]

3 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

American "centrism" is really center-right at this point tbh. 

Supporting Medicare for All (or any proposed single-payer health system) is common sense for all of the reasons you have posted in your next comment, and that is why it polls highly. It is not very hard to understand: everyone has health insurance regardless of income from death to birth just by being an American. It is full coverage, and funded by a  progressively scaling income tax and other supplemental means. Supplemental insurance (private insurance) is still available to purchase and not "illegal" or "abolished." Duplicative insurance (like two insurers covering dental care) however is made illegal because it creates unnecessary competition and strain.

It's polling has only gone down because private insurance and pharma lobbyists have spread these asinine talking points all over MSM and even Democrats like Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden are repeating them. They have spent millions and will spend more and more. Unfortunately, those candidates are more concerned about winning than actually doing what is best, and other than flipping Joe Biden, I don't think anyone actually sincerely sees how it isn't the best plan forward. Even Pete Buttigieg knows its the best plan, he just refuses to fight for it.

Imagine if every candidate was fighting for it as a united front and not pretending to believe half-assed attempts are suddenly better than the real deal - the evidence supporting it as the best proposed option is absolutely overwhelming.

 

I think universal is still better than Medicare for all

 

Medicare for all may cover everyone but it doesn't take away the cost problem of the private healthcare system... Private healthcare is expensive.

 

In fact if demand rises because everyone is covered, the cost may even go a little higher. I said healthcare has a low supply-demand elasticity but it doesn't mean it has none at all

 

This is coming from someone who hates it when the government takes over certain things.... Governments in general have a tendency to always have cost overruns and they spend more to get the same done as private companies because since they aren't driven by profit and shareholders they are less careful to keep costs in check and have more issues like overstaffing, not enough business emphasis on price bargaining for stuff like materials, slow beaureocracy, sometimes being too generous with wages and overpaying people (new construction workers in my city holding a slow sign can get like $35/h which is more than a mechanic makes) etc... For example if you want a large piece of infrastructure built, a private company can usually manage to do it cheaper than the Government doing it

 

But when it comes to services everyone needs, services that on top of that are inelastic in demand and don't follow the usual rules of supply and demand with prices (at least not to the extent most products do)... And services with a lot of middle men like insurance companies adding to the cost...

 

With stuff like this it's the exact opposite. The costs actually go up from it being private than if it's the government running it and just taxing what is needed to pay it's operation costs without a profit margin and without premium costs to pay private insurances costs and profits too

 

It really is a no brainer...

 

I like Capitalism but u can't be stubborn about it. Capitalist supporters need to understand there's certain things it just doesn't work very well for and healthcare is one of them .

 

And in other aspects needs to be to fairer and not regressive (like the regressive tax system of easy gains from wealthy people's investment capital being taxed at a lower rate than hard labors income tax) but that's a different topic for another time.

[Ziggy 14,156]

Well duh lol

 

It's no mystery since it had enormous national support than suddenly became a "debated topic" out of the blue. It's not contentious; it only is when you add dumb s*** like M4AWhoWantIt which is, again, dumb. If you're going to have a public service, it needs be supported by the entire populace. Similar to the "don't want to pay for rich kids' college" idea, well too bad. Public services are funded by *everyone* in the public paying for it and then they can choose to use it or not. The difference with healthcare is that if you maintain private insurance, you're always going to have an inferior public system as the companies will have more agility to make the public option unattractive thus making it ineffective and expensive. It's literally what conservatives do to every public program. "Look how this thing we torpedoed doesn't work!!"

[SMILE2NE1 3,566]

5 hours ago, thedirtymonster said:

Single payer didn't even work in liberal Vermont, where they pretty much had zero opposition. The costs proved to be too much, and they abandoned the idea. Perhaps Bernie could try to perfect it in his own turf before he tries it for the entire country.

We're obsessed with the mess that is America

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

I think universal is still better than Medicare for all

Medicare for all may cover everyone but it doesn't take away the cost problem of the private healthcare system... Private healthcare is expensive.

In fact if demand rises because everyone is covered, the cost may even go a little higher. I said healthcare has a low supply-demand elasticity but it doesn't mean it has none at all

This is coming from someone who hates it when the government takes over certain things... Governments in general have a tendency to always have cost overruns and they spend more to get the same done as private companies because since they aren't driven by profit and shareholders they are less careful to keep costs in check and have more issues like overstaffing, not enough business emphasis on price bargaining for stuff like materials, slow bureaucracy, sometimes being too generous with wages and overpaying people (new construction workers in my city holding a slow sign can get like $35/h which is more than a mechanic makes) etc... For example if you want a large piece of infrastructure built, a private company can usually manage to do it cheaper than the Government doing it

But when it comes to services everyone needs, services that on top of that are inelastic in demand and don't follow the usual rules of supply and demand with prices (at least not to the extent most products do)... And services with a lot of middle men like insurance companies adding to the cost...

With stuff like this it's the exact opposite. The costs actually go up from it being private than if it's the government running it and just taxing what is needed to pay it's operation costs without a profit margin and without premium costs to pay private insurances costs and profits too

It really is a no brainer...

I like Capitalism but u can't be stubborn about it. Capitalist supporters need to understand there's certain things it just doesn't work very well for and healthcare is one of them .

And in other aspects needs to be to fairer and not regressive (like the regressive tax system of easy gains from wealthy people's investment capital being taxed at a lower rate than hard labors income tax) but that's a different topic for another time.

Medicare for All is the only truly "Universal" position being put forth, so I'm not sure where that bit comes from. What do you prefer *over* it? There isn't another position on the board RN that is a single-payer system featuring automatic enrollment at birth to everyone in America... unless you're saying you just prefer a Universal in Name only approach that is less expensive?

Private healthcare (in America) is expensive because of administrative/bureaucratic bloat, high literal prices of goods and labor, and drug prices. M4A addresses all 3 of these pretty handedly  Maybe I'm missing a point youre making here...

Will demand rise if everyone is covered for certain procedures, drugs, etc.? Possibly, but it's the gov't taking on these expenses and negotiating the prices now with a strong fist and the collective bargaining power of 320 million people now, so its not my biggest concern. 

Also, you're right, there are things that a private sector is arguably better at than the government. I don't think your worries about generalized inefficiency are as important to how M4A would be implemented as you think though...  Some people hear "government _____" and think it must inherently be bad because of the stereotypes you've put forth, but as you know there are things that the government certainly either does better than Private Insurance, or should do anyway for reasons beyond mere economic gain.  Those are all acceptable outcomes to me, even though I don't think they will mostly apply to M4A (overstaffing, keeping costs in check, and lack of aggressive bargaining specifically are antithetical to M4A's goals  ) 

[Economy 52,935]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Medicare for All is the only truly "Universal" position being put forth, so I'm not sure where that bit comes from. What do you prefer *over* it? There isn't another position on the board RN that is a single-payer system featuring automatic enrollment at birth to everyone in America... unless you're saying you just prefer a Universal in Name only approach that is less expensive?

Private healthcare (in America) is expensive because of administrative/bureaucratic bloat, high literal prices of goods and labor, and drug prices. M4A addresses all 3 of these pretty handedly  Maybe I'm missing a point youre making here...

Will demand rise if everyone is covered for certain procedures, drugs, etc.? Possibly, but it's the gov't taking on these expenses and negotiating the prices now with a strong fist and the collective bargaining power of 320 million people now, so its not my biggest concern. 

Also, you're right, there are things that a private sector is arguably better at than the government. I don't think your worries about generalized inefficiency are as important to how M4A would be implemented as you think though...  Some people hear "government _____" and think it must inherently be bad because of the stereotypes you've put forth, but as you know there are things that the government certainly either does better than Private Insurance, or should do anyway for reasons beyond mere economic gain.  Those are all acceptable outcomes to me, even though I don't think they will mostly apply to M4A (overstaffing, keeping costs in check, and lack of aggressive bargaining specifically are antithetical to M4A's goals  ) 

I'm saying I think it's better than what the US is putting forward and should be the ultimate goal that's what I'm saying

 

Medicare may cover everyone but at it's core healthcare will still be private. Hospitals will still need to charge for a profit margin and insurance companies their profits too even if they are regulated

 

But since the US isn't gonna do that I guess Medicare will have to do for now 

 

Canada is not as fully Universal as some European nations because we've kept a lot of parts of healthcare private like dental, vision care, pharmaceuticals, phychologists, pharmaceuticals etc

 

And the cost of all those things is just... Insane

 

On the pharmaceutical side at least it's improved given regulation and now they are talking about a national Pharma plan too tho I dunno if it will pass

[LibraLove 1,281]

*Pretends to be shocked.gif*

[Born To Slay 10,996]

10 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm saying I think it's better than what the US is putting forward and should be the ultimate goal that's what I'm saying

 

Medicare may cover everyone but at it's core healthcare will still be private. Hospitals will still need to charge for a profit margin and insurance companies their profits too even if they are regulated

 

But since the US isn't gonna do that I guess Medicare will have to do for now 

 

Canada is not as fully Universal as some European nations because we've kept a lot of parts of healthcare private like dental, vision care, pharmaceuticals, phychologists, pharmaceuticals etc

 

And the cost of all those things is just... Insane

 

On the pharmaceutical side at least it's improved given regulation and now they are talking about a national Pharma plan too tho I dunno if it will pass

Well one think I’d like to point here, under Medicare For All, private insurance would be illegal. 

[Economy 52,935]

1 minute ago, Born To Slay said:

Well one think I’d like to point here, under Medicare For All, private insurance would be illegal. 

True. Thanks for reminding me of that detail

 

But insurance still has operating costs, profit or not, private or not. The people answering phones, the people approving or declining claims etc... Those costs gotta be paid for too

 

Since the US system is private healthcare, the insurance centres are a bigger thing because they gotta go thru almost every transaction... It's not automatically approved and payed for like in the government part of healthcare

 

Almost every nation has insurance (because even the most Universal healthcare systems have something they left out). But they are small because they are only taking care of whatever little stuff isn't covered by government for the ppl that chose to get insurance

 

Here in Canada if they finally pass the national Pharma program I'm gonna cancel my health insurance. The premiums aren't worth it just for dental and glasses... And I do have mental health challanges and on occasion need phychologist appointments but my insurance doesn't cover that one anyway so I'm already paying out of pocket

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

I'm saying I think it's better than what the US is putting forward and should be the ultimate goal that's what I'm saying

 

Medicare may cover everyone but at it's core healthcare will still be private. Hospitals will still need to charge for a profit margin and insurance companies their profits too even if they are regulated

 

But since the US isn't gonna do that I guess Medicare will have to do for now 

 

Canada is not as fully Universal as some European nations because we've kept a lot of parts of healthcare private like dental, vision care, pharmaceuticals, phychologists, pharmaceuticals etc

 

And the cost of all those things is just... Insane

 

On the pharmaceutical side at least it's improved given regulation and now they are talking about a national Pharma plan too tho I dunno if it will pass

Medicare currently doesn’t completely cover health costs in the US. Individuals have to purchase a separate policy to cover the “donut hole”. People act like Medicare is complete coverage, and it isn’t even that.

The attitudes and opinions have been consistent towards M4A, if you look at how the questions have been framed. People are in agreement that we need to have insurance coverage for all Americans. They just are apprehensive about giving up their own insurance, especially to the government. People look to examples like the VA or state designated “safety net” hospitals as examples of government run examples of health agencies and they are worried that M4A will end up like those examples.

[Whispering 18,865]

9 hours ago, thedirtymonster said:

Single payer didn't even work in liberal Vermont, where they pretty much had zero opposition. The costs proved to be too much, and they abandoned the idea. Perhaps Bernie could try to perfect it in his own turf before he tries it for the entire country.

I’ve often wondered about this. Why doesn’t Vermont have a stellar health care system? They have a constituency willing to try for universal coverage and a state with a healthy tax base and lower risk individuals. It’s a perfect trial state.

For that matter, why haven’t they been one of the states to go to free college for all? Especially under Bernie pushing for it for ages? Other states have free community college, or even free state schools. Vermont’s State tuition is the highest in the US. 

Programs sound like good ideas, until you go to fund them.

[Economy 52,935]

28 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Medicare currently doesn’t completely cover health costs in the US. Individuals have to purchase a separate policy to cover the “donut hole”. People act like Medicare is complete coverage, and it isn’t even that.

The attitudes and opinions have been consistent towards M4A, if you look at how the questions have been framed. People are in agreement that we need to have insurance coverage for all Americans. They just are apprehensive about giving up their own insurance, especially to the government. People look to examples like the VA or state designated “safety net” hospitals as examples of government run examples of health agencies and they are worried that M4A will end up like those examples.

What are safety net hospitals and what health agencies are u talking about? I don't know about this

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

Well one think I’d like to point here, under Medicare For All, private insurance would be illegal. 

This isn't *actually* true.

Duplicative insurance would be illegal. You won't be able to have Medicare and get another insurance coverer for something that would be covered, like a life saving surgery.

You will however be able to use private insurance to get coverage on things like plastic surgery, etc. - lucrative markets and where the wealthiest doctors and providers work  

[Morphine Prince 109,729]

17 minutes ago, Economy said:

What are safety net hospitals and what health agencies are u talking about? I don't know about this

Hospitals that legally have to treat everyone regardless of their insurance status. 

[ChromeAngel 3,230]

15 hours ago, Economy said:

Healthcare is the worst industry ever to privatize for many different reasons:

 

1. It's literally your life and health at stake... It's not a luxury you can put a bid or price on that should be profited from like an apple iPhone or a new laptop

 

2. It's not a service that is as elastic as most products. Many goods and services if they get too pricey people buy less so companies can only raise prices so much... But you will pay your last dime and then some if it involves your life. This means gauging is hard to control... Also there's only so many hospitals and centres per city so competition is limited

 

3. It adds to its cost because you have to pay a profit margin for the treatment, plus another profit margin for the middle man (insurance companies) not to mention their operating costs

 

Capitalism and the Free Market are great for innovation and industries coming up with better products etc... Healthcare tho shouldn't be a part of that

 

The cost per capita of US Healthcare vs other developed Nations speaks for itself tbh

I’m not sure what country you’re from, but I feel so lucky to have America’s healthcare system. I have family who live all throughout Europe and the healthcare is abysmal. Not the magical thing Americans think it is. I know people who live in Canada and their healthcare is a joke. The Doctors are incompetent and the hospitals are dirty. Oh and good luck if they go and cancel your surgery! Because that’s a thing that often happens. 

Nothing in this world if free. Nothing. You’re paying for it in some way. 

The US produces the most research and innovation than any other country by far. Nobody comes close. I don’t get why healthcare shouldn’t be a part of that. 

[Economy 52,935]

20 minutes ago, ChromeAngel said:

I’m not sure what country you’re from, but I feel so lucky to have America’s healthcare system. I have family who live all throughout Europe and the healthcare is abysmal. Not the magical thing Americans think it is. I know people who live in Canada and their healthcare is a joke. The Doctors are incompetent and the hospitals are dirty. Oh and good luck if they go and cancel your surgery! Because that’s a thing that often happens. 

Nothing in this world if free. Nothing. You’re paying for it in some way. 

The US produces the most research and innovation than any other country by far. Nobody comes close. I don’t get why healthcare shouldn’t be a part of that. 

I find a lot of Americans perception of problems in our healthcare system exagerated...

 

Anyway ur right that nothing is free. But the US system is far more expensive

 

If u spent the same amount of money on a universal healthcare system ud have superior quality to these Countries whose systems your complaining about

 

Because when it comes to a universal health system the budget makes a big difference and here in Canada we don't like to run big deficits and spending is kept in check...

 

But if we were to run bigger deficits and spend on a per capita basis the kinds of costs the US healthcare system has... A lot of the problems with longer lines ur talking about wouldn't be an issue

 

This superior US health system u talk about has the US as one of the few developed Nations where life expectancy is still below 80