Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 66

Thread: Implementing Medicare for All

  1. Top | #11
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    8,352
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    25,181
    Rep Power
    82
    Ocasio-Cortez just showed Democrats how to end the purity wars - The Washington Post - I like that title. It's about her willing to compromise on the way to her goal of M4A.

    It quoted that Huffington Post article, quoting most of what I'd quoted about AOC.
    The thing is, I’m almost sure that Sanders would privately agree with AOC — even if he can’t say it publicly. Which he can’t, for both electoral and negotiation reasons.

    Much of Sanders’s career has been devoted to moving the debate to the left, giving voice to ideas and policy proposals that aren’t given much consideration in “mainstream” circles. And just as you wouldn’t walk into a negotiation saying “I’d like to pay $250,000 for this house, but if you ask for $300,000 I’ll probably say yes,” you don’t want to compromise with yourself before negotiations begin. Likewise, as a candidate Sanders can’t say that he knows he’ll fail to pass his signature policy proposal.
    Then on how unlikely M4A would get passed in Congress.
    But it’s important that single-payer remain on the table as an option, not only because talking about it helps highlight everything that’s wrong with the current system, but also because it serves as a kind of cognitive and rhetorical anchor for everyone involved. It’s like the suggested retail price you never actually pay; a pair of pants that has been reduced from $75 to $35 looks like more of a deal than a pair of pants that’s just $35.

    ...
    To a certain extent, Ocasio-Cortez is giving away the game here, but she’s just being honest, both by implicitly acknowledging that single-payer isn’t going to happen and by granting that a public option would do a huge amount of good.
    It could be part of the way to M4A, or it could end up a sort of hybrid system like what France and Australia have.

    About BS's supporters who oppose anything less than M4A right away,
    I doubt they’re going to cast Ocasio-Cortez out for speaking the truth, but it might make them consider whether they’ve been a little too doctrinaire.

  2. Top | #12
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,121
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,594
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Until Medicare for all without the option for private insurance is a losing policy because too many people see that as a diminishment of their existing coverage.
    It's what I have been saying all along--if you want to get rid of the opposition to UHC show that it works: fix the UHC systems we have. People are going to be opposed so long as they see the existing UHC systems as inferior to the coverage they have.
    Or explain to them that the coverage they have costs $20k-ish a year, for the premiums. That'd be money their employer isn't giving to them, but stuffing into premiums.

    Secondly, is Medicare 4 All really great? How much out of pocket still exists with that? Quite a good deal. Sure several thousands isn't too much for getting cancer, but several thousands of dollars is simply a lot of money for most people in retirement. It should be a minimal out of pocket. We also need a new 10% gambling tax to help with the funding, of which other funds would be via corporations, people, and use taxes.

  3. Top | #13
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,121
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,594
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Until Medicare for all without the option for private insurance is a losing policy because too many people see that as a diminishment of their existing coverage.
    I was pondering whether UHC is this time's Moon mission. Creating a UHC for the US is complicated. Cost of living varies notably depending on where you are, so it isn't quite as simple as one funding mechanism fits all. You need to collaborate with the patients, the doctors, nurses, hospitals, and the insurance companies (who'd pretty much be strapping up their own ropes). This isn't easy, even if you had a unified government dedicated to this (instead of the windmill of illegal immigration). To create such a system would be a marvel.

    And our government sucks so bad right now, they can't pass a budget.

  4. Top | #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    336
    Archived
    333
    Total Posts
    669
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Medicare for all seems like a nice idea, but it favors the rich too much. If you are rich, you show up at the hospital, slip the doctor $1,000 bucks or so, and you get your surgery first. You get to skip ahead of the poor people. Money talks.

    This is the reality in other countries with universal healthcare. Is this what you guys truly want? No thanks. You really think a doctor is gonna say, "I'm not taking your thousand bucks. I have to take this poor person first."
    That doesn't happen here in Canada. It sounds a lot like the system you guys have now though.

  5. Top | #15
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,024
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,967
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Until Medicare for all without the option for private insurance is a losing policy because too many people see that as a diminishment of their existing coverage.
    I was pondering whether UHC is this time's Moon mission. Creating a UHC for the US is complicated. Cost of living varies notably depending on where you are, so it isn't quite as simple as one funding mechanism fits all. You need to collaborate with the patients, the doctors, nurses, hospitals, and the insurance companies (who'd pretty much be strapping up their own ropes). This isn't easy, even if you had a unified government dedicated to this (instead of the windmill of illegal immigration). To create such a system would be a marvel.

    And our government sucks so bad right now, they can't pass a budget.
    I think the best approach is to have a public option, allow private insurance and work to improve Medicare. To be fair, Mr. Sanders' promise for Medicare for All if it follows his bill is for no deductables or co-pays. I think that as Medicare and the public option improved, there would be less market and employee pressure for private health insurance through the employer.

    I do think that some of the support for Medicare for All with no private health insurance is driven solely by envy or hatred of the wealthy. Allowing those with the means and desire to have access to better health care seems silly to me if there is sufficiently good care available to everyone at no to very low cost to them.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,945
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    4,195
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Medicare for all seems like a nice idea, but it favors the rich too much. If you are rich, you show up at the hospital, slip the doctor $1,000 bucks or so, and you get your surgery first. You get to skip ahead of the poor people. Money talks.

    This is the reality in other countries with universal healthcare. Is this what you guys truly want? No thanks. You really think a doctor is gonna say, "I'm not taking your thousand bucks. I have to take this poor person first."
    That doesn't happen here in Canada. It sounds a lot like the system you guys have now though.
    You are a very naive person if you think that doesn't happen in Canada. That's one of the examples used to show why universal health care would favor the rich.

  7. Top | #17
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    17,420
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    20,454
    Rep Power
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Medicare for all seems like a nice idea, but it favors the rich too much. If you are rich, you show up at the hospital, slip the doctor $1,000 bucks or so, and you get your surgery first. You get to skip ahead of the poor people. Money talks.

    This is the reality in other countries with universal healthcare. Is this what you guys truly want? No thanks. You really think a doctor is gonna say, "I'm not taking your thousand bucks. I have to take this poor person first."
    That doesn't happen here in Canada. It sounds a lot like the system you guys have now though.
    You are a very naive person if you think that doesn't happen in Canada. That's one of the examples used to show why universal health care would favor the rich.
    We'd be less naive if you would provide a link stating the rich skipping line is a pervasive problem in Canada.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

  8. Top | #18
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,856
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,356
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    You are a very naive person if you think that doesn't happen in Canada. That's one of the examples used to show why universal health care would favor the rich.
    Speaking of naive, how many times have people onthis forum accepted your claims without anything in the way of evidence?
    Yet, here you are again, flogging someone else's bullshit with fuck-all for support.

  9. Top | #19
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Until Medicare for all without the option for private insurance is a losing policy because too many people see that as a diminishment of their existing coverage.
    It's what I have been saying all along--if you want to get rid of the opposition to UHC show that it works: fix the UHC systems we have. People are going to be opposed so long as they see the existing UHC systems as inferior to the coverage they have.
    Or explain to them that the coverage they have costs $20k-ish a year, for the premiums. That'd be money their employer isn't giving to them, but stuffing into premiums.
    In other words, simply make people accept they can only have shitty care. Are you in the lead balloon business, perhaps?

    Secondly, is Medicare 4 All really great? How much out of pocket still exists with that? Quite a good deal. Sure several thousands isn't too much for getting cancer, but several thousands of dollars is simply a lot of money for most people in retirement. It should be a minimal out of pocket. We also need a new 10% gambling tax to help with the funding, of which other funds would be via corporations, people, and use taxes.
    A 10% gambling tax would take in almost nothing because it would make the return on gambling so bad that few would play. I strongly suspect you would end up with less revenue than now.

    (Hint: The highest house percentage I'm aware of here is 5% and it's typically far less than this.)

  10. Top | #20
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Medicare for all seems like a nice idea, but it favors the rich too much. If you are rich, you show up at the hospital, slip the doctor $1,000 bucks or so, and you get your surgery first. You get to skip ahead of the poor people. Money talks.

    This is the reality in other countries with universal healthcare. Is this what you guys truly want? No thanks. You really think a doctor is gonna say, "I'm not taking your thousand bucks. I have to take this poor person first."
    That doesn't happen here in Canada. It sounds a lot like the system you guys have now though.
    You are a very naive person if you think that doesn't happen in Canada. That's one of the examples used to show why universal health care would favor the rich.
    I haven't seen any serious source that says this.

    Canada's problem is long waits unless it's proven that it's something urgent, and a large number of people who get disorganized medical care from urgent care places because they can't find a primary care doctor. The way they jump the line is come here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •