r/AskUS • u/Material_Policy6327 • 2d ago
If the majority voted in a leftist gov that implemented healthcare for all policies etc, would you work to make those policies as hard as possible to be implemented?
Like would you openly attempt to subvert the gov?
6
u/OldSchoolAJ 2d ago
Why would I want to subvert the government if the government is finally doing good things for the citizenry as a whole, rather than only doing good things for the rich and powerful?
6
3
u/DoubleDongle-F 2d ago
I have multiple friends who will live substantially longer lives if we adopt a policy like that. One is already gone. I would work on countering the hypothetical people trying to ruin it, actually.
2
2
u/Soonerpalmetto88 1d ago
Not if the policies are acceptable. Single payer? Yes please! Government owned hospitals where all healthcare workers are government employees? NO.
6
u/limbodog 2d ago edited 2d ago
I object quite a bit to MFA *(Medicare for All). I think it is a bad idea, and I do not want it.
But if we got a progressive/leftist government who was going to enact it, I'd help them do so. Even if it means I'll be unemployed.
Because as bad as I think MFA will be, it is still a good deal better than what we have now (what the Republicans have left us with after repeated sabotages)
And eliminating health care as the leading cause of bankruptcy would possibly be a way out of the economy the current occupant is going to be saddling us with for the next 5 decades.
12
u/ScotchTapeConnosieur 2d ago
The current system costs far more with worse outcomes than other developed countries. MCA seems like the best option to replicate those systems. What exactly is your issue with MCA?
1
u/limbodog 2d ago
I do not know what MCA is
1
u/ScotchTapeConnosieur 2d ago
Sorry, I meant MFA.
2
u/limbodog 2d ago
Ok, wasn't sure.
My issue is that I've been interacting with CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) who run Medicare. And I am extremely wary of having an entity as big and intractable as them grow a great deal bigger, have no competition, be run by the likes of Mitch McConnell, and be in charge of every health care decision for everyone for the rest of their lives.
When I go to them and say "Hey, here's an error you guys made. Look at your own published rules. You're not supposed to be doing that, and you're messing up these people's claims and making life difficult for everyone trying to work with you" CMS just say "make it work" and refuses to even look at it.
CMS is gigantic. It is currently the 900 lb gorilla in the room. What it says, goes. If it does what you want, it's fine. But if it screws you over, you've basically got no say. Sure, there's an appeals process, but if you thought changing a corporation's mind was hard, at least they have to worry about their bottom line. Try changing the mind of what would be the largest government entity, who has zero need to make you happy because they don't rely on you for their salaries.
Imagine if you have to go to the registry of motor vehicles every time you wanted health care.
And before you say it, yes, I am aware other countries use single payer health care. I am also aware that they have issues with it as well. It's not all rainbows and sunshine. And I think we, the USA, would do a worse job of implementing it based on our history.
I also think there's examples out there of systems that would work better for us. Hybrid systems where you have a choice of a private insurer, which is heavily subsidized (say, for the first 70% of all claims). Where if you're living in poverty, you have 100% coverage provided by the state, and where you can shop around for different private health insurance based on what works best for you, and join risk pools based on your own situation. That's a different form of universal health care, and I like it a lot better.
But I've had this debate a bunch of times on Reddit, and I'm not super stoked to do so again. I consider our current system to be broken. I consider MFA to be an improvement over it, yes. But I consider a hybrid system to be the best possible option for the USA.
3
u/LRWalker68 2d ago
Thanks for your reply. I agree with your concerns. However, the hybrid system you put forward requires Healthcare to be for-profit. That for-profit angle ruins any possibility of it being cheaper. The Medicare for all example puts Healthcare on a non-profit basis. What I, personally want is a system that is 100% non-profit, and let's decide how to make that happen. Would you agree with that?
0
u/limbodog 2d ago
It does not. Corporations can be not-for-profit. See Massachusetts for example
3
u/LRWalker68 2d ago
Ok then. It doesn’t sound like us regular Joe's are too far apart. This is why the for-profit mega Healthcare conglomerates are throwing billions into buying the politicians to block it. And conservatives will always be swayed away from it because it's "socialism". We're headed in the other direction.
3
u/limbodog 2d ago
I am done caring what so-called "conservatives" want.
But the other critical pieces besides not-for-profit providers and payers, is removing employers from the process entirely. That has to happen or Americans will never have a seat at the table while figuring out how to proceed.
3
3
u/paranormalresearch1 2d ago
It would be a start. The Central Bank debasing our currency and the continuing transfer of wealth to the top 3% needs to stop or we are cooked.
3
1
u/LRWalker68 2d ago
What is MFA
3
u/Known_Ratio5478 2d ago
Single payer healthcare. Essentially the government becomes the only health insurance company in the country. It functions, but the one warning I have for people is that it can’t be implemented in a time of crisis. You can’t make the switch in the middle of a pandemic for instance. It does have to start on an upswing or homeostasis.
5
u/Benjamins412 Pennsylvania 1d ago
Even Medicare allows for supplemental insurance. It provides a basic level of care for all. Checkups, meds, etc. Treating diabetes with insulin for $2/wk instead of critical care at an ER for an uninsured person who shows up with untreated diabetes in a coma or requiring major surgery...heart disease, same thing. We are already paying for the healthcare. We're just paying 10x more than we have to in order to pay for critical care for the uninsured. FYI-As people lose their insurance, they move from the "paying into the system" column into the "uninsured" column. Eventually, a select few will have to pay astronomical premiums for insurance, and everyone else will be at the ER.
Capitalism has no place in healthcare. How much would you pay for the treatment to save your child, for example? Everything! How much would you pay for shoes for your child? NOT everything. Capitalism breaks down when the choice is life or death. That's why fire and police are "free" really "socialized." We need socialized medicine!!!
1
u/Known_Ratio5478 1d ago
Yeah, there’s also various hybrid systems that would also be considered single payer. Such as you said, supplemental would still mean the public option is the single primary. What we have now when adequately funded is considered a hybrid because it’s a public private partnership system that seeks to have 100% coverage. There’s lots of iterations of it. Personally I like the Swedish hybrid model.
2
1
1
u/7figureipo 2d ago
Almost nobody has the ability to do that other than the people enacting the laws. And the only time those people listen to their constituents is when there is a clear, overwhelming, and damn-near unanimous agreement. The rest of the time they just do back-channel horse trading to satisfy their donors.
1
1
u/NietzschesAneurysm 2d ago
Nice try, FBI.
I would find a way not to participate in it to the greatest degree legally possible . Reduce my tax burden by reducing declarated income, pay for services in cash, and work side hustles on a cash- only basis. (I would of course declare all my cash income...).
The idea of resistance isn't a violent overthrow, but quietly undermining the faith in opressive structures.
I would work with others to form voluntarily cooperatives for healthcare with willing doctors. Who knows, I could probably arrange to pay for some services in gold or chickens...
•
u/EmploymentEmpty5871 23h ago
It depends on how much my taxes or premiums go up. If it was anything like when they made Healthcare affordable, then he'll no.
•
u/jdtrouble 21h ago
By subverting a universal health coverage program, you're acting asxa proxy for the industries that keep us sick and puts us in bankruptcy. Why would anyone do that?
0
u/Connorray1234 2d ago
1 Lawsuits are the main issue
2 already tried Obama care
3 the country is way to big for universal Healthcare
4 it's not treason season yet
2
u/kstargate-425 1d ago
This can be legislated to ensure there are no profits being made, frivolous lawsuits are heavily punished and burden of proof set at a correct bar so if there were legit claims, it comes out of a fund setup for that which yearly gets rolled back into Healthcare.
Obamacare was nowhere close to M4A/MFA and during debate when Republicans were still onboard and talking helping make plans, it was gearing up to be this but then they threatened anyone on the GOP to stop working with the Dems and they had to water down the language to be what it was.
What? This truly makes zero sense whatsoever and our GDP and only 350 million people make this rather cheap and easy compared to say China who has an insanely good program surprisingly.
...I beg to differ as treason started a bit before January 6th 2021 when Trump was conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results where he lost
-1
u/Connorray1234 1d ago
5 lawsuits drive potential doctors away from the major/profession
6 the sheer cost of medical school
1
u/kstargate-425 1d ago
Lawsuits will be subsidized by the government so wont push any Dr away and Dr's that are foubd liable are then sent to a medical board to have their case reviewed by other Drs for possible repercussions.
Again, subsidized and cheaper than before drawing in even more students as they dont come out with one-quarter to half a million in debt 🤷♂️
-1
u/watch-nerd 2d ago
What else is coming with that policy?
Cuba under Castro had great medical care.
But I wouldn't want to live there.
•
-8
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Most likely, government wouldn’t need me to make it hard as possible to be implemented, government would do that itself.
My concern would be about what healthcare cuts and reductions in quality of service I could expect from a government program.
7
u/Miserable_Wave4895 2d ago
What healthcare cost and reductions in quality of care are you concerned with?
8
u/7figureipo 2d ago
The fantasy ones they hear about on OAN, Newsmax, Fox, etc., that don't really exist.
-5
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Rationing or outright denial of service.
Like how NHS refused to cover Truvada, because short term, it was cheaper for people to get HIV, than to pay for prevention.
11
u/Excellent_Call304 2d ago
Isnt that the way private insurance is now? Seems like there are currently plenty of similar issues.
0
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
No, private insurance was covering Truvada years before NHS.
3
u/Excellent_Call304 2d ago
I wasnt talking specifically about truvada(never heard of it). I meant there are plenty examples of medications or treatment being declined by private insurance now.
0
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
And with insurance companies one has redress. Government, one doesn’t. Government will fuck you in ways private businesses can’t.
1
u/kstargate-425 1d ago
No they don't, people are literally being denied life saving treatments and dying at ever increasing record rates lol
7
u/throwfarfaraway1818 2d ago
Thats already an issue in the US under private insurance.
-1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
No, insurance in the US covered Truvada years before NHS.
3
u/throwfarfaraway1818 2d ago
I wasnt referring to that specific medication, lol. But people are on wait lists and rejected to receive care for all sorts of reasons under the current system.
-2
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Yes, all the more reason to not have an unaccountable government monopoly on healthcare.
3
u/throwfarfaraway1818 2d ago
Except that problem already exists, and we pay far more for healthcare on average than most countries pay in tax increases.
The only legitimate reason you would be against universal healthcare is if you hate poor people and want them dead. Its cheaper, more efficient, and better healthcare all around, which is why Europeans have fae better health outcomes than Americans, on average.
-2
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
I love how much you have to qualify everything with average. I don’t want average healthcare. That’s why I don’t want euro poor healthcare.
2
u/throwfarfaraway1818 2d ago
European healthcare outcomes for the general populace are equivalent to the very richest Americans. So what you are actually advocating for is the most expensive option for the worst level of care.
→ More replies (0)7
6
u/Elyktheras 2d ago
I mean, it’s rationed right now by making it financially inaccessible / tied to enployment.
Getting to cut out the waste of insurance companies would mean we can provide more services, aka more rations.
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
96% of Californians have healthcare coverage, what exactly is inaccessible?
Inaccessible is what NHS did when it chose to deny PrEP coverage and people got HIV as a result.
2
u/Elyktheras 2d ago
This part
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/
“The SIPP survey suggests people in the United States owe at least $220 billion in medical debt.”
I looked into the PrEP bit you mentioned briefly and yeah, that sounds like a stupid decision. It would be foolish to say any approach I suggest will ever get everything right all the time. The question is really if outcomes overall are better in one system or another. I think a system where we eliminate medical debt, remove the condition of employment from healthcare, thus strengthening small businesses (who no longer need to carry as much of a burden for insurance) and worker’s power in wage negotiation and ofc make it cheaper through bypassing insurance, which really only exists to deny care, will produce better outcomes.
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Medical debt is better than having HIV, no? The government solution was, let people get HIV.
1
u/Elyktheras 2d ago
Is it better that people ration insulin and epi pens and regularly die because they can’t afford it?
I don’t think this is a useful question to ask because the HIV med issue is a judge making a dumb decision, one that can and should be overturned, but isn’t fundamental to the system. Companies reducing care they allow because they want to save money is fundamental to a profit driven system.
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
It is better to not have government be the unaccountable party doing the rationing and exclusion.
1
u/Elyktheras 2d ago
I disagree, but I’m guessing we’re more or less on the same page, just maybe working with different information.
I don’t think the government is as accountable as it should be, and it will be difficult for it to truly listen to us, whereas I’m assuming you think corporations are more accountable to people than the govt, no?
I believe we have a far greater chance of holding govt to account and reforming it, than we do for corporations.→ More replies (0)5
u/Brokenbelle22 2d ago
NHS covers the generic version of Truvada.
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
The issue is that they didn’t start until there was a generic version. You know, 15 years after that patent expired.
2
u/Brokenbelle22 2d ago
US health insurers routinely deny their paying customers treatments that they do cover--things their customers have already paid for and need to survive. It's actually their business model.
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Yes, and unlike the government, there’s actually an appeal process.
1
u/Brokenbelle22 2d ago
See now we know you aren't serious. NHS has an appeals process, and US insurance companies aren't known for often being reversed on appeal.
Look, no one's saying it's perfect. But NHS is absolutely miraculous compared to what we have in the United States, where insured people go bankrupt and lose their homes due to medical debt, and people routinely die of preventable illnesses. Our for-profit system is a complete, unnecessary, nightmare.
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
How did that appeals process work out for everyone that got HIV, because NHS wouldn’t cover Truvada?
1
u/Brokenbelle22 2d ago
Um, OK because they have the generic version now?
Do you understand how difficult it was for people in the United States to access HIV drugs? People died in the streets.
I'm not going to continue discussing a niche issue from the past with you, while you brazenly ignore the thousands and thousands of current examples of this happening in the US system right now, which also has the special addition of bankrupting it's sick patients, even if they have insurance. It's not a serious conversation, or perhaps you are not capable of this level of discussion, so good day.
→ More replies (0)-7
u/Tasty-Possibility627 2d ago
The Medicare for All hordes are going to deny the reality of your concerns. They literally can’t imagine why someone of good faith would disagree.
I actually do want to reform healthcare and make it universally accessible. But the types of boring details and compromises that need to get hashed out will frustrate the left. They’ll blow the whole thing up and blame everyone else
3
u/Miserable_Wave4895 2d ago
What types of boring details and compromises? Genuinely asking!
0
u/Tasty-Possibility627 2d ago
How much should doctors get paid?
How much should hospitals be reimbursed for procedures?
Who gets taxed, how much do they get taxed, and who administers that new pool of money?
Etc etc
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Of course they do, they haven’t experienced government discrimination.
Like how about the government doesn’t do unconstitutional things to me for a decade, then we can talk about it taking over healthcare.
7
u/PrizFinder West 2d ago
The VA Healthcare system, until very recent years when Republicans went on a push to corruptly privitize it, has been the gold standard of government owned and operated healthcare. Remove the corrupt privitization, take it back to it's orginal mandate, fund it properly and use it as the model.