October 16, 2019 at 8:38 pm #42904ChicoParticipant
I wonder how the UK, Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc. etc. etc can possibly manage to afford national health care, then???
Trick question. Of course they can. Articles like this one from the Atlantic ignore the replacement cost here. Right now my wife and I are paying a $20,000 a year “tax” on self insuring and deductibles and so on. The taxes to cover nationalized health care are only “eye-popping” when one DOESN’T consider what is being spent privately by employers, employees, and our federal tax dollars already. It’s a replacement cost, and since it is by definition not for profit it is a heluva lot cheaper in the end. (Caveat- if run at least somewhat efficiently.)
To ignore the other side of the equation is just disingenuous at best. We already have successful models all over the world.October 16, 2019 at 9:06 pm #42905
Chico: “I wonder how the UK, Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc. etc. etc can possibly manage to afford national health care, then???”
They can afford it because their citizens accept a massive amount of government control over the health care system plus more government spending on health care. Americans, for better or worse, have always been wary about too much government intervention or spending.
In Europe, medical school is cheap or free. Doctors graduate with little or no debt, but they aren’t expecting to become wealthy practicing medicine. In the US, on the other hand, going to med school means taking on an enormous amount of student debt – only practical because they expect to make a good living after they finally work in medicine and be able to pay it off eventually and probably become prosperous. And that raises the cost of care, too. It’s an equation that we need to balance like the other countries have – but are US taxpayers yet willing to invest in big subsidies for med school, for nursing school like these other countries are? That’s a case that needs to be made. The people advocating for “Medicare for All” aren’t bothering to make it – their entire focus is on “insurance companies are greedy – getting rid of them and replacing them with Medicare will solve our health care cost issues.”
Let’s also keep in mind something few people mention: one reason these other countries can afford lower health care costs – which they impose on the providers and pharma companies – is that those companies make more money on the US health care system – so they can afford to make less in Canada and Europe. If you can charge a fortune for insulin in the US because the cost is completely unregulated here, you can afford to sell it for only a modest profit in other countries. But what if the US suddenly slashes their profits here, too? Almost certainly, the costs for all the other countries will have to go up too – so ours may go down but not to the level of these other countries.
Yeah, Single Payer in the US is posible, but it will be a whole lot more complicated and expensive than “Medicare for All” proponents make it out to be – and the political pill is much too big to swallow. Advocates need to make an honest, realistic case for it and not pretend it will be easy. People are naturally going to be wary about abolishing private insurance in favor of government control instead; people still remember that the government took months just to get the simple Obamacare website to work, and that is tinker toys compared to something massively complicated like switching the entire health care system to “Medicare for All.”October 16, 2019 at 9:07 pm #42906
That is complete bullshit Vitalogy. Nations all over the world are doing health care as human right. Their outcomes are better, their people do not die, lose homes, go bankrupt, etc…
Big pharma is totally extorting Americans. Insulin here is 10x what it is all over the world. And go down the list.
Want to know one of the more ugly impacts the ACA had? One I wrote about here some years back?
The requirement that 80 percent of the dollars go to care. What happened? You know those people would not give the money up, so insurers bought care providers, and everyone inflated costs to make the smaller enforced margins deliver the same revenue to meet wall street expectations.
Upward cost spiral. I will bet your employer has seen near double increases since the ACA. Most have. Some have not.
We do not allow Medicare to bargain. That is insanity! And the moment that gets changed, fixing just that will deliver a nice fraction of what is needed.
When we subtract existing costs, the difference is totally managable. We have it.
And like I said, this is a litmus test for millions. Who?
For starters, damn near every American who lost someone, their home, went bankrupt, or who currently suffers because they have to choose between car and rent are through. It is cruel, unacceptable and unnecessary.
If we nominate someone who is not all in on fixing this shit, that someone is going to lose.October 16, 2019 at 9:11 pm #42907
Oh and look at this shit Andrew just put here!
Basically, his argument is we have to pay those higher prices so the rest of the world can get it cheaper?
Put that shit to a poll and let’s see just how many Americans think that is OK? About as many who thi k we have to pay starvation wages so other nations can grow and develop economically, like it is some noble duty or other!
I don’t. Nobody I know does. We are talking real lives here, real people, real pain, real struggle and it is on a massive level.
The only reason it is so damn out of control here is we allow it. When health care is about profit, that is what happens, and when that happens people die early, suffer, go broke, and more.
Most other nations know better too. They make health care about health care. That happens to be the “massive control” part and like I said, life spans, outcomes, every basic metric there is turns out better. We do worse, and getting more worse as more and more people run afoul of insane increases every year too.
Fucking Cuba does better than we do, and one of that nations primary exports happens to be doctors.
Like I said litmus test. Ask around.October 16, 2019 at 9:21 pm #42908
Missing: “Put that shit to a poll and let’s see just how many Americans think that is OK?”
It has been polled more than once, and your “shit” doesn’t poll very well.
– Kaiser Family Foundation polling suggests that people support “Medicare for All” by 56% to 42%…until they are told that their taxes might go up (they will have to go up) to pay for it. Then support drops to 37%.
– An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from last month showed that only 41% of voters supported Medicare for All:October 16, 2019 at 9:59 pm #42909
There are many other polls. Support is only increasing.
The tax change is unpopular largely because many people do not yet understand what will happen with costs and the positive impact all that is going to have on business and their health.
Besides, I am going to be ultra blunt:
Litmus test. The way to defeat Trump runs through M4A.
Argue all you want. In the end, that is precisely what we are going to find to be true. And there are choices to be made on all that. These ugly politics ate what happens when too many Americans find the economic policy untenable. I do not blame them and am on board 100 percent.
As clarity on all that continues to improve, the implications will bring more people onboard too. The work so far is a side show, and it has been damn effective.
Just look at the arguments:
A majority have to suffer so people in other nations don’t. Watch polls on that, if anyone were to dare.
Or, a majority have to suffer because endless war costs too much.
Or, a majority have to suffer so profits can meet Wall Street expectations.
Good luck.October 16, 2019 at 10:53 pm #42910
Missing: “The tax change is unpopular largely because many people do not yet understand what will happen with costs and the positive impact all that is going to have on business and their health.”
Or…they don’t trust a promise that if we say we’ll raise your taxes 10%, we’ll really cut your medical costs by 12% so you’ll come out ahead. What if it turns out costs drop only by 5%? Oops. Americans have always had a healthy skepticism of the government, not always for the better – but that’s how we are. Promises are easy to make, harder to keep.October 17, 2019 at 1:51 am #42912
Look, a whole lot of us are just going to keep working, until health care runs acceptably and reasonably. Lots of votes are linked to a leader who will do the same. Put enough people on it, and it will run reasonably, and acceptably.
Not much else to say.
I am absolutely not going to debate it with you. What we have now is unacceptable. That’s it.October 17, 2019 at 12:31 pm #42913
Missing: “I am absolutely not going to debate it with you. What we have now is unacceptable. That’s it.”
Who said it was?
This is the kind of fake false choice we get from Sanders and Warren: unless you support my radical, “bold” (unrealistic) “Medicare for All” plan, you must support zero changes to the existing system, which is of course bullshit. Klobuchar expressed this well during the debate. Every Democrat running wants to improve the health care system we have.October 17, 2019 at 3:26 pm #42916VitalogyParticipant
The best way to make sure Trump is re-elected is to run on a promise to take away private insurance.
I’m all for making sure everyone has insurance and that costs are minimized. The best way to do that is to offer a public option so people have the CHOICE of what to do. This would create competition in the marketplace and if the public option turns out to be the better option for people, then guess what happens to the private insurance companies? They either cut the fat or go out of business.October 17, 2019 at 7:59 pm #42921
That choice costs too much. Leaves way too many people out. Lots of those people are not gonna vote for more being left out.
Why should they?
…and they care about your concerns exactly as much as you do theirs too.
More than enough votes to lose are linked to M4A.
That is the field of play. Play how you will. I am going to.October 17, 2019 at 8:18 pm #42922
Missing: “That choice costs too much. Leaves way too many people out.”
Great. So then Trump gets re-elected and even more people lose their insurance when he is finally able to get rid of Obamacare completely. My guess is that the “we won’t vote for an impure candidate in 2020!” folks aren’t the ones who will have to suffer the most for their votes, unfortunately. Too bad.October 17, 2019 at 8:20 pm #42923
Yeah, if people insist on the status quo. That is the most likely outcome.
Again, why should they vote for more being left out?October 17, 2019 at 9:17 pm #42924
Missing: “Yeah, if people insist on the status quo. That is the most likely outcome.”
Trump is the “status quo.” The fact that Democrats like Biden don’t support your radical, unrealistic agenda doesn’t mean they support the “status quo.”
“Again, why should they vote for more being left out?”
So they won’t be even more left out and left behind with for more years of Trump – unless you are saying they are better off with Trump than with Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar. Maybe that is what you are saying?
If they/you think they/you are better off with Trump than with a Biden or Klobuchar, then they should just vote for Trump – and so should you.October 17, 2019 at 11:37 pm #42925
You do not yet understand. Frustrating isn’t it?
None of that is an answer to the question, BTW.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.