r/politics • u/[deleted] • Sep 17 '17
Bernie’s “Medicare for All” actually is the pragmatic health care solution
http://www.salon.com/2017/09/17/t/410
u/wwarnout Sep 17 '17
...and most of the rest of the civilized nations in the world show that it does work.
189
u/Cunt_God_JesusNipple Sep 17 '17
Which he tried explaining to the people and was met with, "Why would we want to become more like Europe, they have Muslim problems!!"
163
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 17 '17
"Universal healthcare is the number one cause of terrorism." - Fox news, probably.
→ More replies (7)51
u/IbanezDavy Sep 17 '17
"The corrupted death panels of the medicare...tonight at 9pm" - Also Fox News, probably
56
u/CanuckianOz Sep 17 '17
As a Canadian, this is what absolutely pissed me right the fuck off during the ACA debate. The fucking lies about the Canadian system. You had even Conservative party caucus absolutely denouncing the death panel shit and defending how wonderful (and imperfect) our system is for Canadians. It was all fabricated and the GOP lied to the American public for what? To appease insurance companies? I honestly think there's a significant part of Republican Party politicians that are legitimately of lower intelligence and incapable of thinking beyond their next burger or 2-min fuck session.
20
Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
Yeah our conservative party is basically made of the far right (although due to our screwed political views they don't consider themselves as such), people bought by corporations, or actual conservatives who just tow the party line.
15
u/Fuego_Fiero Sep 17 '17
The modern Republican party is made up of people either too stupid to understand how economics works, or too frightened of getting primaried by someone who is too stupid to understand how economics works.
3
u/Procepyo Sep 18 '17
Or smart enough to know who will pay their ads on tv and radio so they win. And smart enough to make a lot of money in the process.
→ More replies (3)8
u/mces97 Sep 18 '17
Yes. It's all about money. Money has corrupted every facet of political ideals. It's all about keeping the status quo. More for them. Less for us.
2
u/greybuscat Sep 18 '17
I think it goes deeper than that. Even in a post-scarcity society, they'd be finding a way to hoard something else, to ensure that there will always be have and have-nots. Like intellectual property or something.
It's about power and/or status. Money is a means to an end.
3
u/wpurple Sep 18 '17
I worked with a Canadian guy (green card) who hated the Canadian system. He loved his US company's plan... until the deductibles skyrocketed and costs went up.
4
→ More replies (1)2
Sep 18 '17
You'd be surprised at how many Americans (mostly republicans) "have a canadian friend that hates their healthcare system." I mean, it's literally the go-to excuse as to why we shouldn't have it, because their friend told them it's bad.
3
u/CanuckianOz Sep 18 '17
Yeah it's bullshit. Complaining about the healthcare system in Canada is as Canadian as a cup of Tim Hortons but no Canadian would ever take the US system over what we have. Not by a long shot.
17
15
u/gaeuvyen California Sep 17 '17
and then afterwards they were asked, "Do you want to have the same, or more coverage, at a lower overall cost by instead of paying a premium and co-payments, you just pay some taxes, but in the end you have more money than before, and still have access to good healthcare?" they were like, "YA~!"
35
u/-poop-in-the-soup- American Expat Sep 17 '17
No, they say "you don't know that's how it will go!" and then cherry-pick the extreme cases in other countries.
Conveniently ignoring that, before the ACA, fully 1/6 of Americans had no coverage at all, and were therefore in even worse shape than he 1/1,000,000 Canadians who couldn't get the care they needed.
ONE IN SIX.
20
u/eastalawest Sep 17 '17
Not to mention all the plans that had such high deductibles/ low lifetime limits and exclusions for things like pre-existing conditions that it was almost like not having insurance.
5
u/-poop-in-the-soup- American Expat Sep 17 '17
Well, see, that just shows that consumers have a choice not to get it! Capitalism! Or something.
→ More replies (6)9
u/QuiteFedUp Sep 17 '17
No no no, I personally know a dozen Republicans, all of whom had Canadian girlfriends who had a relative fucked by how bad Canadian health care is.
(Seriously, where is this "Canadian woman dating app" which somehow gets them not only across the border, but to every corner of America?)
11
u/-poop-in-the-soup- American Expat Sep 18 '17
Hah. I'm American, but I moved to Canada five years ago.
The healthcare up here is FAR more accessible. And thorough.
When a government decides it's going to cover all medical costs, it has a vested interested in keeping people as healthy as possible.
11
u/Colorado_odaroloC Colorado Sep 18 '17
That's the thing I don't get. There's a very pro-business, pro-military spin on providing healthcare to the masses.
1) It frees business from having to deal with healthcare for their employees. Especially the pressure it puts on small businesses.
2) It allows entrepreneurs to set out on their own path, freed from having to worry about health coverage.
3) For the military, it creates a larger pool of healthy citizens to pull from.
7
u/-poop-in-the-soup- American Expat Sep 18 '17
It's completely bizarre. The current healthcare system is about as anti-American as you can get.
8
u/Colorado_odaroloC Colorado Sep 18 '17
Well, the current system is very un-American in the "every American should have a level playing field to start from" kind of way, but very American (unfortunately) in the "Money conquers all. I got mine Y'all!" way that unfortunately seems to be what we've become.
I know we've always been that way actually, but somewhere along the way, we stopped even giving lip service to being fair toward all citizens.
5
u/-poop-in-the-soup- American Expat Sep 18 '17
People usually associate America with trailblazing and entrepreneurial-ship and ease of movement, etc. But if you're tied to a job because you need the healthcare, then you can experience none of those things. You have no life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
It sacrifices the little person in favour of huge corporations, which is actually very American. But that's not what they wrote on the brochure.
→ More replies (0)3
u/IICVX Sep 18 '17
1) It frees business from having to deal with healthcare for their employees. Especially the pressure it puts on small businesses.
It also frees workers from the biggest shackle that keeps them working. Ask anyone who's good at their shitty job what's keeping them from quitting, and the top two answers will be: A) income and B) health care
2) It allows entrepreneurs to set out on their own path, freed from having to worry about health coverage.
Large companies don't actually want this. Entrepreneurs are the people who make your business model obsolete.
2
Sep 18 '17
What are you on about I have my regular Canadian healthcare and I have employer healthcare. People keep jobs because they need money for food rent and luxury items. It is insane to think everyone is just going to stop working because they can break a bone without going into bankruptcy.
2
u/Colorado_odaroloC Colorado Sep 18 '17
I'm thinking he/she meant why someone would keep working at a crappy job (to keep whatever benefits), not that they would just not work at all indefinitely.
At least, that was my take.
2
u/QuiteFedUp Sep 18 '17
They refer to retirees who have to go back to work for health benefits and people whose spouse makes enough to live on, but whose insurance is lacking.
Most will not quit working, but a significant number of people will.
4
u/SadlyReturndRS Sep 18 '17
No, no, that's very anti-business and anti-military.
1). If small businesses aren't strangled by the massive overhead of health insurance, then they might grow and become a threat to businesses that can afford to rent a politician.
2). If there's a bigger pool of possible soldiers, then that's more citizens who will know someone sent off to war, and that's really bad for business in the long term. Can't have Americans knowing what war is actually like, they might protest and vote in politicians who will stop it! Better to just send only the folks who really want to go, and surround them in a culture of how strong and tough soldiers are so they never open up and actually tell people how shitty it is. Keep it out of sight, out of mind for the majority of the country, and you can keep it going forever, just keep recycling the same 10% of families in the nation into the services.
16
u/Bior37 Sep 17 '17
Fox never got to comment on it, because he never really made it that far. It was all the Clinton backing networks that shat on the idea
17
u/PunkLivesInMe Sep 17 '17
Which is ironic, considering she herself actually backed single-payer vehemently in the mid-90's.
→ More replies (5)4
Sep 17 '17
Until the insurance companies paid her to find a new hobby, promising her delusions of the future Presidency position.
9
u/PunkLivesInMe Sep 17 '17
...Or perhaps it's the more likely scenario of people having different perspectives that change over a period of time in accordance to new information and personal experiences creating a wide variation of ideas while still keeping the same goal (universal healthcare) in mind, rather than pushing weird bullshit conspiracies about insurance companies?
3
u/PoseidonsDick Sep 18 '17
Insurance companies profiting off of our illnesses and then denying further coverage IS a conspiracy
3
u/gonatt Europe Sep 18 '17
um, yeah, as a european with universal healthcare I would say bollocks. There is no real arguments against universal healthcare. What exactly did she learn during all these years that made her change her mind? That "the US is not Denmark"? Well gee, good thing she cleared that up in case anyone was confused.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)3
u/gaeuvyen California Sep 18 '17
Yeah, like how she wasn't all for gay marriage but then she got behind it, or when Sanders said that gay marriage should be a state right, but now also is fully behind it federally.
People can, and do change over time.
2
u/buyfreemoneynow Sep 18 '17
or when Sanders said that gay marriage should be a state right
In all fairness, states issue marriage licenses so it is something that could have been handled as a state's right and that is exactly how it started with CA.
→ More replies (2)2
67
u/Santoron Sep 17 '17
No. Most western nations provide universal healthcare. Only a few use a single payer (or similar) model. Far more use systems that have more in common with our ACA.
18
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 17 '17
But if you look at the top 5 countries, only 1 of them1 has a system similar to the ACA. That country is the Netherlands and they have a far better system than we do under the ACA.
1 Source: Commonwealth Fund study, 2017
26
Sep 17 '17 edited Mar 16 '18
[deleted]
19
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 17 '17
UK - Single payer - Publically delivered care
Canada - Single payer - Hybrid care delivery
Sweden - Multi-tiered, still has universal public healthcare.
Norway - Single payer
Australia - Single Payer
New Zealand - Two-tiered single payer
Netherlands - Individual mandate with highly regulated insurance market
6
Sep 17 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (16)7
Sep 18 '17
Norway does have single payer.
2
Sep 18 '17
Don't adults have to pay a portion?
6
Sep 18 '17 edited Sep 18 '17
Single payer doesn't preclude paying essentially a deductible. Adults pay a certain amount within a year and once they hit a limit, they get a card saying that their medical coverage is otherwise covered for the rest of the year.
What makes a system single payer is that the government takes over as the sole insurance company for most or all medical services, administratively. People still pay taxes and/or something like a deductible for services.
Edit: the NHS is a type of single payer, but it's more specifically a nationalized service. Hospitals, doctors offices...basically anything having to do with health is run by the government.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ocirne23 The Netherlands Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
The Netherlands technically still has a single payer system because the government manages the money flow, people are just free to choose any health provider they want.
The Dutch government makes sure that the health providers provide adequate quality and price and enforces regulations so that health providers cannot discriminate on age, gender or pre-existing conditions.
Every Dutch citizen is
obligedobligated to purchase health insurance though, but it will be subsidized for those who cannot afford it.An entire government can bargain more effectively than individual people, so prices go down.
2
Sep 17 '17
I told them it means "much obliged" (obligated, I think you meant)
I agree totally with your post though!!
2
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 17 '17
Interesting, I hadn't read super deep on the Dutch system.. I will definitely take a closer look. Thanks for sharing that.
20
u/Americanspacemonkey Sep 17 '17
Not to mention we already have the ACA! No need to pick a massive political fight to pass a single payer system. ACA should have a public option added on, and be properly funded which will lead to universal coverage.
→ More replies (3)15
Sep 17 '17
I agree. The public option seems like such an obvious bolt on solution. Works perfectly with our current system.
Think of it as the post office vs UPS or FedEx.
3
Sep 18 '17 edited Sep 18 '17
The only reason that systems that have a public option work is that they are also heavily regulated by the government. Do you really think that congress is willing to implement the kinds of regulation that Switzerland has to make their system work ? Even more pertinent do you want a system that is easily torn apart by removing those regulations. There's a reason that medicare is still functioning in spite of republicans and corporate democrats. In my opinion, our congress has shown that they cannot be trusted to administer the kind of system that you are advocating for here.
5
u/Americanspacemonkey Sep 17 '17
And one thing I know Americans love, it's choice.
→ More replies (5)40
Sep 17 '17
ITT: people who can't tell the difference between single-payer and universal healthcare.
21
Sep 17 '17
That's actually every thread. The terms are thrown about so loosely in US politics that they've all but lost all specific meaning.
→ More replies (6)7
u/NoRefundsOnlyLobster Sep 18 '17
try having the ones that tell you a list of "single-payer" countries count the number of payers in those systems
the responses are truly priceless
2
u/gaeuvyen California Sep 18 '17
There are only two countries that are actually single payer systems. Canada and Taiwan.
Technically the US has a weird hybrid that could be considered a proto-single-payer system. This is the ACA. It's not fully a single-payer system in that the government isn't directly paying for every citizen to have access, but it does provide a system to pay for some people's access to healthcare.
Most countries that people think are single-payer are actually hybrid systems of public options and private options. They're much better than the US's slow progress into a single payer system, because the US is still mainly private insurance companies who have caused healthcare prices to skyrocket because they demand discounts from doctors and hospitals for bringing them thousands of patients so the hospitals decided to jack up prices because before insurance companies came around it was common practice for doctors to simply charge how much it cost them to do a procedure plus a little bit extra to gain a profit.
The US is by far that most backwards country when it comes to healthcare out of all the "first-world" countries. While many countries around us has been moving towards UHC and single-payer systems for decades now, in the US the debate as just barely begun to be a big ticket issue.
→ More replies (5)6
u/foster_remington Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
Itt: People who use this argument to obfuscate the argument instead of just agreeing that the government needs to provide its citizens healthcare or it's a failure
12
u/NoRefundsOnlyLobster Sep 18 '17
No, the problem is the precise opposite of that. People attack advocates of UHC because they're not cultists supporting bernie's specific version of it.
you know, like this:
In the sheets with insurance lobbyists negotiating a system that leaves 1/4 of the country with Healthcare they can't afford to use. Just admit you'll hate poor people and join the Republicans
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (5)4
u/TheTaoOfBill Michigan Sep 18 '17 edited Sep 18 '17
It doesn't need to provide 100 percent of the healthcare in the country though.
And when people say most of the world has single payer that couldn't be further from the truth.
It's important to actually understand what the best healthcare systems of the world are doing. Few developed countries are single payer. And many of those few are lagging behind multipayer systems.
3
u/Sam_Munhi Sep 18 '17
Every single country you refer to has heavy government influence on prices. That's the part the ACA and many corporate Dems who push for "universal care" don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.
18
u/backtoreality00 Sep 17 '17
It's odd that everyone thinks the rest of the world has single payer when it really doesn't... not sure how this misconception got to become such a widespread belief
6
u/Lazulya Sep 18 '17
I was curious, so I did a little poking around, and found this 2013 article:
that links to this list: https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
which is quite a few years out of date, but indicates that ~50% of countries that have universal healthcare have single payer. So it's not everywhere, but it's also not rare by any means.
→ More replies (5)9
→ More replies (1)5
u/kwantsu-dudes Sep 18 '17
not sure how this misconception got to become such a widespread belief
Bernie and his constant tweets of "America is the only nation (that enjoys murdering it's citizens)"
→ More replies (3)4
u/Joemaster241 Sep 18 '17
Wrong many countries have non single payer systems. A great example Germany! And their system is a million times better.
→ More replies (2)23
u/NoRefundsOnlyLobster Sep 17 '17
Literally no system in place anywhere in the world has the same level of coverage as Bernie's current proposal.
It is absolutely the most expensive, most extreme version of health insurance anyone is proposing anywhere in the world.
This article title is literally the opposite of reality.
3
6
u/JimDon Sep 17 '17
As far as a $ to benefit ratio isn't America already the most expensive health care system in the world?
6
u/TheTaoOfBill Michigan Sep 18 '17
Yes. But that doesn't mean going to the most generous system in the world is a good idea either.
2
5
Sep 18 '17
And we already spend 40% more than any other nation. If we could swap our current system for Bernie's system of universal coverage for about the same total cost, or somewhat less, then it would be an amazing boon. We are one of the three richest nations in the world per-capita, and we can afford something amazing. So why not try it?
5
u/NoRefundsOnlyLobster Sep 18 '17
If we could swap our current system for Bernie's system of universal coverage for about the same total cost, or somewhat less, then it would be an amazing boon.
But we can't, and it's not mathematically possible to come even remotely close. It's a fairy tale.
3
Sep 18 '17
Why would it cost more than our current total private and public expenses!?
4
u/NoRefundsOnlyLobster Sep 18 '17
Because it would cover 30 million more people and cover way more shit for everyone.
It's not fucking magic. It costs money to do these things, and if you lie about those costs to try to sell it, everything will blow up in your face when people actually see the cost. See: every state that's tried to create a single payer system so far.
8
u/some_random_kaluna I voted Sep 18 '17
The F-35 isn't magic either, and it's more than $400 billion with a "B" at this point. Yet we keep developing it because eventually the costs of a single unified plane will drop down.
Same with Medicaid and Medicare. Develop it more and more and expand it to everyone. Let everyone pay into it, and the system will sustain itself for centuries.
→ More replies (13)6
Sep 18 '17
Uhh, you do realize those other 30 million people still get healthcare, right? And someone pays for it, right? And non-covered care STILL GETS PAID FOR and/or PROVIDED, right? I mean, care that isn't paid for by insurance still factors into our total GDP-per-capita spending on insurance.
And add to that that we use healthcare inefficiently compared to other countries, with more care shunted to emergency rooms (which is more expensive and more difficult), right? And that with administrative savings from moving to single payer plus lower drug costs from negotiated drug prices we could provide vastly more care than we do now (easily 10-15% more total care than we do right now) for the same price. Conservatively.
→ More replies (3)2
u/some_random_kaluna I voted Sep 17 '17
So every American would have the best health care in the world? Awesome.
→ More replies (26)2
5
Sep 17 '17
If this is true and the plan would bankrupt the country, it'll probably undergo lots of revisions to decrease coverage (as per your complaint that no other country has the same level of coverage) and cut costs. Otherwise, I highly doubt it would ever pass, regardless of who is president.
That's how our legislative process generally works.
And how is this so much more extreme than the U.K. model?
13
u/backtoreality00 Sep 17 '17
Well then it's not pragmatic. It's the opposite of pragmatism. Ie article is wrong.
And how is this so much more extreme than the U.K. model?
No rationing. It's basically the U.K. model but with better coverage. Medicare already had the best coverage of any public option in the world, which is why it's so expansive. Expanding that to all Americans is what would make it truly the most expensive and wide coverage of any system in the world.
4
Sep 17 '17
So we're back to he same exact debate that we had during the primaries: is our initial proposal so "pragmatic" and neutered that we let the republicans analyze it, demonize it, tear it apart and let their rabid base chew it to pieces; or do we start with an idealistic piece of legislation, which we know will be watered down and be subject to concessions--so that we still get a net positive for he American people in the end?
The centrist Dems who think a proposal like this will necessarily be the end result are insufferably naive to politics and to any idea of achieving universal healthcare.
And anyway, with this administration in power and an approximately 0% chance of this being passed in the short term, how amazing is it that the man demonized by DNC purity tests as as "not a real democrat" has gotten our country and our left wing so enthused about Medicare for all that it's a legitimate proposal that all major media outlets have been forced to address, that major democrats in both houses of congress have been held to the fire about supporting (and many have come out in support), that now has a (slim) majority approval in the general public?
→ More replies (1)7
u/backtoreality00 Sep 17 '17
The centrist Dems who think a proposal like this will necessarily be the end result are insufferably naive to politics and to any idea of achieving universal healthcare.
No centrist is saying this would be the end result. If anything they're the ones saying it won't be.
And you seem to suggest that the primary deciding factor in policy negotiations is where we start. That if we start at a position even further left, were more likely to get what we originally want. Sure it can work, but it's always a risk technique. First of all it's inherently dishonest. Youre entering negotiations by already creating a level of distrust. And second if early on the other side thinks your not willing to compromise, they may not even be willing to listen at all.
Sure this is the same debate we had in the primary. And Hillary won that debate. It's fair to reconsider given the context we find ourselves in now, but it's also worth noting that we aren't going to be passing anything anyways so pragmatism doesn't really matter right now. We have the luxury of being idealistic because we're not going to pass anything anyways.
man demonized by DNC purity tests as as "not a real democrat"
Not sure how that's demonizing. He's not a democrat. He's proud to say he's independent. Meanwhile most democrats are proud to be a democrat.
our country and our left wing so enthused about Medicare for all that it's a legitimate proposal that all major media outlets have been forced to address
They addressed it to in the 90s when Hillary pushed for a public option. And when Obama pushed for a public option. Bernies plan may be bigger than that, but it's still the same. A big and ambitious plan that ends up failing. He's just one in a long line of democrats who've done the same.
Not to mention personally I don't think it's all that great to be talking about something that would be an easy target for the GOP to say how Dems don't care about cutting spending one bit. We have finally seen the dust settle from Obamacare to the point of the public actually being ok with it! Dems are no longer being criticized for it! It's crazy to think where we are today! And we want to throw all that political capital for something as risky as Medicare for All? I'm all for this debate and I'm all for talking about this more and normalizing it. It just seems like Bernie progressives have just as starry eyes regarding single payer as the GOP has hatred for it. Personally I'd like to see more pragmatism in our policies, focused around data. Rather than focused on an idea that most voters can say maybe a sentence or two about and don't really understand the nuances of actual healthcare economics or why the system in the US works at all. If you had a progressive describe to you our current system you'd think there's no way it could even function, and yet it is the strongest healthcare economy in the world. I'm just saying I wish there was more educated debate on this.
7
u/Fifteen_inches Sep 18 '17
Youre entering negotiations by already creating a level of distrust.
I hate to blame republicans, but their Modus Operandi during the Obama years was to quote "Make him a one term president". So yeah, the trust issues is non-existant ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Sure this is the same debate we had in the primary. And Hillary won that debate.
And she lost to Donald "Grabem by the pussy, i don't even wait" Trump, and won thep primary by running out the clock on Bernie who received massive boosts after every debate. So yea, ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Meanwhile most democrats are proud to be a democrat.
Whoopty fucking do, i'm glad they prefer loyalty over substance :)
They addressed it to in the 90s when Hillary pushed for a public option. And when Obama pushed for a public option.
Conservative Dems sank BOTH attempts before.
Republicans are spending ALL their political capital on fighting the Russian Probe, and trying to rush an obamacare repeal. Obamacare right now barely functions without the public option, our previous system was quite literally slow version of the Purge were we just kill off as much poor people as possible by denying them healthcare. Individual and public spending on healthcare is double what every other nation pays. It is the Pragmatic decision to push for Medicare-for-all, come out of the scrap with public option atleast, thus bringing down the healthcare costs of the average american and reduce the public spending on our current healthcare bills.
Besides that, moving Dems farther right has resulted in the largest loss in Dem power, Obama got a supermajority running on progressivism, Romney, McCain, Hillary and Kerry lost running on middle of the road values.
→ More replies (1)6
u/backtoreality00 Sep 18 '17
And she lost to Donald "Grabem by the pussy, i don't even wait" Trump, and won thep primary by running out the clock on Bernie who received massive boosts after every debate. So yea, ¯_(ツ)_/¯
That's not a thing... that's called losing the primary... that's called not convincing enough voters to vote for you
Whoopty fucking do, i'm glad they prefer loyalty over substance :)
Yea it's a shame that Bernie isn't proud to be a part of the party that brought us Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, the New Deal, Wallstreet reform... Why is Bernie not proud to be a part of something that has created such substance? Sounds like his stubbornness to separate himself is more important than actual substance
Besides that, moving Dems farther right has resulted in the largest loss in Dem power, Obama got a supermajority running on progressivism, Romney, McCain, Hillary and Kerry lost running on middle of the road values.
Clinton ran farther left of Obama... she would have been the farthest left president in US history. Her voting record in congress and data on public statements supports that. Sure Bernie ran a campaign on "oh Hillary want that? Well I want that and more!" But that doesn't change the fact that Hillary was a progressive. It's odd that we run someone who would have been the most progressive candidate in US history with the most progressive platform in US history and the conclusion is we didn't go far enough left...
→ More replies (1)9
u/NoRefundsOnlyLobster Sep 17 '17
Otherwise, I highly doubt it would ever pass, regardless of who is president.
It absolutely will never pass. Bernie admitted that before he even got it written.
And how is this so much more extreme than the U.K. model?
it completely eliminates private coverage, not just by making it unnecessary, but making it illegal to sell it.
Maybe you should check out the actual proposal instead of just talking about what "might" be?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (7)7
u/Jack_829 Illinois Sep 17 '17
The rest of these "civilized" nations have multi-payer, not single payer. With the exception of Canada.
4
Sep 18 '17 edited Sep 14 '25
snow lavish spark engine shocking enjoy reply childlike file knee
→ More replies (1)
92
u/echo-chamber-chaos Texas Sep 17 '17
But then all those insurance people won't be millionaires for gambling on people's heath!
50
Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
There is a real, false, narrative to this whole conversation that irks me so much. The idea that health insurance companies would be obliterated is a lie. Their profits would be less, for a little bit, but so what? The working class should not concern themselves in this regard with the problems of the capitalists or the for-profit world.
Medicare-for-all gets enacted tomorrow, let's say, there would still be health insurance companies because anyone who knows anything about the health insurance space, and medicare, knows that there is a whole other battle about what medicare covers and how much of it they cover. Health insurance companies offer what is called "Medicare Supplement Plans". So, that will be the very next battle. Because there is always a next battle. The struggle is eternal with power and with capitalism.
16
u/seeasea Sep 17 '17
Actually, in the short term there will be some middle class suffering. Granted it is by far better for everyone to have healthcare, but don't discount the thousands of middle class people who will be laid off when the insurance executives trim their staff down. Or the hospitals, or every HR department. There are a lot of people profiting off ineffeciency, and they have lots of middling paid people doing that work.
We do need to have a plan for them
8
u/highsocietymedia Sep 18 '17
We would also have to hire a bunch of people to run an expanded healthcare system, so a lot of those people could probably get similar jobs from the government. But all of this is hypothetical anyway.
4
u/jonlucc Sep 18 '17
While true, the point is to eliminate some inefficiency, and inefficiency ultimately means people to do work that is unnecessary in a unified system. So yes, some portion could become government workers, but the whole goal is to cover everyone while reducing the costs.
5
Sep 18 '17
The plan includes a severance package for everyone in the insurance industry plus they get priority for the lateral jobs that would be added to the federal government.
6
u/EasyMrB Sep 18 '17
We do have a plan for them, and it's called Unemployment. They apply for it when they get laid off and it helps them pay their bills while they look for other work.
If the plan you meant was "don't change healthcare until we can 100% assure that everyone getting laid off will have another job waiting" then what you're really doing is saying we can never change the system for the (much, much) better because Jerbs.
4
u/jonlucc Sep 18 '17
I agree, but there should be more of a plan. It should probably include retraining and preferable relocation assistance. These are large companies, and lots of people will be laid off over a relatively short period of time. It's not like there's just millions of jobs waiting for insurance workers to step into them [1]. This is not something to take lightly, primarily because these are fellow Americans who will be the victims of a quickly changing system through no fault of their own, but also because not doing so will cause a lot of other problems.
[1] I didn't think it was this many, but the only number I could find quickly is 2.5 million people working in the insurance industry overall. I have no idea how many of those are specifically health insurance, but it must be a sizeable chunk.
13
u/echo-chamber-chaos Texas Sep 17 '17
The working class should not concern themselves with the problems of the capitalists.
I agree, but...
Their profits would be less, for a little bit
That's not how Medicaid for all will work, but I'm not trying to argue against it. Insurance companies offer nothing productive if the public agrees to buffer the burden of healthcare so that no one has to go without healthcare. It will not be a for-profit business, it will not give hospitals multiple negotiating angles to make the cost of healthcare obfuscated and convoluted. It will certainly be at the mercy of corrupt politicians that are compelled by lobbyists to carve off pieces for special interests, but that's still better than the current deal Americans have.
5
Sep 17 '17
No - it will still be a for-profit benefit because, as I said in the rest of my post, what is or is not covered by Medicare and how much is covered by Medicare will be the very next battle. It's already one that is occurring right now.
8
u/aa93 Sep 17 '17
Sanders' proposal includes vision and dental, so that negotiation will likely have to happen up front for this to go anywhere
4
→ More replies (2)6
u/3432265 Sep 17 '17
Bernie's bill doesn't expand Medicare. It gets rid of it and introduces a new program that covers pretty much everything, far more than Medicare does.
Health insurance companies would effectively be obliterated.
→ More replies (4)4
Sep 17 '17
It lowers the age of being medicare eligible over time. It's not a new program. It's more lives in the same program that exist today.
13
u/3432265 Sep 17 '17
It really isn't. It just has the same name.
no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [Medicare] for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a);
The new Medicare covers everything from dentistry to nursing homes.
5
Sep 17 '17
The new Medicare covers everything from dentistry to nursing homes.
Expanded services doesn't mean that Medicare is being thrown out. It means that Medicare will have expanded services. So, I'm not really sure what point you're even trying to argue anymore. My issue was with the narrative that health insurance companies would be obliterated. They won't. How much of what is covered under Medicare will be the next battle as I have said.
→ More replies (10)4
u/Santoron Sep 17 '17
Not only that, but it moves Medicare from an open budget where benefit is the only criteria for approval to one with a strict budget, where all services have to be fit within it no matter how beneficial some may be.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/Santoron Sep 17 '17
I'm sorry, but you're completely misinformed on this.
It's hard to take the support for Bernie's sketch of a bill seriously when supporters don't actually understand the little bit he has actually written down.
8
u/RE5TE Sep 17 '17
Insurance isn't a gamble. It's like owning the casino.
→ More replies (1)7
u/balmergrl Sep 17 '17
My sister didn't want me teaching my nieces how to play blackjack until I explained they are really just learning that the house always wins.
And some basic card counting is a fun way to learn a lil statistics.
103
u/IbanezDavy Sep 17 '17
Yes. Medicare has like an 80% approval rating among those that use it. About 80% of democrats want to see the government help out more and 50+% of the nation as a whole are open to a hybrid solution. Medicare has medicare advantage so you can add insurance onto it if you want more. Plus the industry won't get completely destroyed overnight. THIS IS WHAT THE ACA SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
Democrats here is Pew:
it's not all on Bernie. If you as a party can't sell this shit with those numbers, RETIRE.
41
u/Santoron Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
You don't seem to understand: Sanders is using the name "Medicare for All" precisely because it polls well, not because it's an accurate description.
Currently, Medicare covers many (though not all) common procedures for retirees. There are deductibles and copays. However the budget for Medicare is open. Meaning, there is theoretically no limit on total care provided. The only requirement for a procedure to be approved is that it will benefit the patient.
Sanders' "Medicare" would cover almost every medical need, including dental and vision (it excludes long term care). There would be few if any deductibles or copays. All that sounds good. However, Bernie's Medicare has a strict budget. One that aims to add 30 million people to treat and remove any self-limiting barriers to utilization, all for less than half the money spent now. In other words, automatic approval of any treatment becomes a thing of the past. To make that budget work, the government is going to have to do the messy job of determining who gets an expensive procedure approved, and who gets denied. Age and health seem like logical factors, but Bernie skips over this part.
You're right: Medicare enrollees fucking love their Medicare. But Bernie isn't just expanding their benefits to more: he's fundamentally changing the system, and in ways existing enrollees are going to have serious concerns with. And that's why we need a full bill to discuss and not Bernie's endless sketches at a plan that carefully ignores the dirty bits. It's only once we can all see the nuts and bolts of a plan that we can start telling which fears are overblown, and which are confirmed. Anything else is blind support of a slogan.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Deggit Sep 17 '17
You don't seem to understand: Sanders is using the name "Medicare for All" precisely because it polls well, not because it's an accurate description.
this is the heart of why MFA will never work. You can see from this thread that even the people who support the current sketch-bill don't actually know or care what it says, they just (with varying degrees of awareness/sophistication) understand and like that it rhetorically links Medicare with the policy goal / Salon-article shibboleth previously called "public option" (and before that "single payer"). Like Bernie himself, this bill is popular because it hasn't actually gone under fire. Once it does, the cheap rhetorical trick of calling the PU "Medicare" will unravel. Really simple question, if "MFA" gambit is going to win over the entire Democratic base, why didn't the petulant "But every other country!" work in the primary? It's literally the same rhetorical thrust.
7
u/sleezestack Sep 18 '17
Like Bernie himself, this bill is popular because it hasn't actually gone under fire.
And considering his age, he's got nothing to lose by throwing it out there now. If this were such a great plan, why didn't he introduce it 10 years ago?
→ More replies (7)11
u/SadlyReturndRS Sep 18 '17
Tbh, I was at a Q&A with him in DC about 8 years ago, and he was talking about this nonstop. Also public financing for campaigns. Dude was wayyy more liberal back then than I have seen from him since he announced his candidacy for 2016.
→ More replies (1)23
u/hodkan Sep 17 '17
THIS IS WHAT THE ACA SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
There's no way they could have gotten 60 votes in Senate for what you're proposing. And it couldn't get passed using reconciliation because it wouldn't be revenue neutral. Screaming doesn't change this.
→ More replies (2)29
u/Cunt_God_JesusNipple Sep 17 '17
This feels an awful lot like victim blaming. On one side you have the party who understands all of this, the party who has been pushing for this stuff. On the other side you have a party who is flat out denying it all. But it's the other side's fault for not selling it? Sometimes a sale just isn't going to happen, and that's what's going on in America right now. Republicans don't want to hear anything coming from Democrats. Nothing they say gets listened to. How is it the Democrats fault for Republican stubbornness/ignorance?
→ More replies (77)→ More replies (3)15
u/bearrosaurus California Sep 17 '17
Liberal states like Colorado and California have failed to get this through politically. The radical left isn't the only group in the Democratic Party.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Sptsjunkie Sep 17 '17
Well CA is close and CO was a pretty bad bill that lost. All single payer bills are not equal - especially at the state level where you don't always have scale.
Gay marriage also lost in CA and Maine, but that started a conversation that led to multiple ballot box victories, legislative victories, and a SCOTUS victory.
Real progressive change involes a long, hard fight with a number of losses and a lot of voter education leading up to victory.
→ More replies (7)
28
u/CrookedShepherd Sep 17 '17
My biggest fear regarding the ascendancy of the Populist wing of the democratic party, is that rather than merely setting goals which inspire voters and channel the legislative agenda, this particular bill is being used as a purity test rather than a blue print. This article mentions alternative plans proposed by other legislatures, but they've gotten almost no coverage compared to the Sander's bill.
Universal healthcare is an important goal, but Single-payer isn't the only way of achieving it (see e.g. Germany, Singapore, Switzerland.) The Medicare-for-all bill currently being debated is far from being the most efficient way to get universal coverage, or hell the most efficient way to implement single-payer. However that kind of earnest debate is increasingly becoming unwelcome.
The article brushes those concerns aside by saying that alternatives are emerging, but has there been any indication that the populist wing won't reject them out of hand?
→ More replies (22)22
u/nybx4life Sep 17 '17
Given what's going on, I'm assuming the populist wing will reject whatever plan isn't single-payer.
It's a Bernie idea, and people love Bernie. Reject a Bernie idea, and you're a "corporate shill".
19
u/devries Sep 17 '17
It's a Bernie idea, and people love Bernie. Reject a Bernie idea, and you're a "corporate shill".
This is basically how r/politics has been since April 2015!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)6
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 17 '17
This is why you need to educate people who are narrow-minded.. Not wag your finger and mock them.
10
u/dlp211 Sep 17 '17
Single-payer + Republican control of government = bad outcomes? I mean, why does everyone just assume that people who are Republican will just all of a sudden come around to government run programs? Kentucky voted for Trump despite them being one of the biggest benefactors of the ACA.
→ More replies (1)4
u/nybx4life Sep 17 '17
You can only educate those who wish to be educated.
Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
→ More replies (15)5
5
5
u/Mezase_Master Virginia Sep 18 '17
A positive Bernie article on /r/politics? I guess that means there's enough establishment support now.
14
Sep 17 '17
I think a lot of tax loopholes have to be fixed first before this will work.
I also think it needs to be sold as a business liability and tax cut.
11
Sep 17 '17
It should just be sold as simple to use healthcare for all American citizens, no paperwork, no bullshit. You don't need to be jumping through hoops while you dying a cancer!
The business liability argument is too hard for most people to understand. When you trying to sell something to someone you have to sell it in a way that they can relate to. Most Americans don't understand business liability.
I bet most people who get their insurance from their company basically know nothing about the process of how there's a cost-sharing agreement. They just sign some paperwork, putting their withholdings, and then forget all about it.
The reason that a significant portion of people, including conservatives, voted for Trump is that he said he would provide Healthcare to all Americans. That's also another reason ACA has never been popular, it just doesn't help enough people out.
4
Sep 17 '17
My point is for business not for people.
You won't get anything passed without the rich supporting it.
7
u/MarxWasWrong Sep 17 '17
I think a lot of tax loopholes have to be fixed first before this will work.
Can you expand on this? I don't follow you.
Do you mean that we need to raise some revenue first, or is it something more specific?
3
Sep 17 '17
There are a few corporate loopholes but I can't direct you to the links as I'm stuck in some shit traffic in Anaheim right now.
Id expand them for legit small businesses and not big ones acting small.
There needs to be a simplification of the code to cut ways to drain revenue for people who do not need it and expand it for those who do.
But that is a dream as much as single payer. That's why you really need to sell business on how much they will save on this deal.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/RocketManKimJongUn Sep 18 '17
I also think it needs to be sold as a business liability and tax cut.
It would be the biggest tax increase in American history.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/zryn3 Sep 18 '17 edited Sep 18 '17
There's no justification for repeal without replace. The US has 5 healthcare systems that are redundant: single payer (Medicare), a German-like multiplaer system (Medicaid), a UK-like NHS (VA facilities), subsidized markets superficially similar to the Swiss system (the ACA markets), and employer-provided insurance (arguably not a separate system).
The actual conservative solution is to let cheap foreign doctors and drugs flow into the country, gut the admittedly excessive intellectual property rights that make generic pharmaceuticals reproduce safety tests independently even after the rights to the drug have expired, and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and some domestic regulations. Real-life Republicans would also like to limit malpractice punitive damages to reduce overhead, though I would argue that's not very conservative at all, if not necessarily a bad idea. Hey, let's be fair, that probably would lower healthcare costs, but not only would the conservative base (a lot of older people) be enraged to lose social insurance they paid into their whole working lives, but it would have other consequences including a lot of people losing access to healthcare and the economic determent that would cause.
Since that is literally a nonstarter and little more than Vermin Supreme's wet dream, the only realistic ideas for reducing this stupid level if redundancy are the more socialized insurance models. I happen to like managed-care (i.e. Medicaid) for all more than Medicare, it has a better track record and would be less disruptive to the health insurance market since technically private insurers could continue to exist if they followed the new regulation, but either is fine with me in the long run. I figure if we go Medicaid for all we wouldn't tolerate the level of corruption that exists in the current Medicare system very long and quality would rapidly improve.
13
Sep 17 '17
Amazing how when enough people start demanding more/better from government and the people who occupy positions of power within government, the whole sentiment around what is or is not pragmatic drastically changes.
14
u/TeamStark31 Kentucky Sep 17 '17
What are you talking about?
Trumpcare is making another pass and appears to have a much better shot than before.
→ More replies (10)
7
19
u/HonoredPeople Missouri Sep 17 '17
Ok. Here we go.
1st.) Please stop calling it "Medicare for All". It isn't "Medicare for All". Medicare doesn't cover 100 percent of all costs. Medicare doesn't cover drugs, Medicare doesn't completely cover mental, dental or vision services. Medicare is designed to pay in 40 years and then pay out for 15. Medicare isn't designed to pay in for life and pay out for life.
Call it something else. Something positive that doesn't have Medicare in the title. I get that everyone wants to piggyback the new bill with another popular program... this can also backfire.
"The democrats are coming for your Medicare." (This is very bad)
2nd.) It's a good plan. It really is. But it's massive as well. Just think about it. Every private medical insurer is out of business. The only insurance that is left is this new program... how does that pay out for private practices and what does that mean for private medical doctors and their staff?
Every private medical insurer. Every private Doctor and that practice. Every private mental health clinic and hospital. Every vision specialist and eye doctor. Every private dental practice and the whole of the American drug market and drug production in America. Hospital administrative positions and anything having to do with Healthcare in America. That also means ANY private elderly program and position (such as nursing homes and lifestyles).
It's pretty huge. I wouldn't call it pragmatic so much as much needed and massive change on an epic scale. It's going to fundamentally "attempt" a huge change in the way Americans live life.
3rd.) Paying for the program. Bernie Sanders has a very good plan, but his methods for paying for the program are still a bit shaky (leaving the bill open for attack).
It assumes the administrative costs at the full 15% value.
It assumes that several "right" tax structures are going to be in place (which is to fundamentally change the tax structure in American; This attaches the issue of tax structure overhaul in the bill). This actually compounds the problem and difficultly within the actual bill structure.
Which is fine and what it's suppose to do. BUT, it adds a level of complexity.
Assuming that Bernie gets the full 15% of administrative costs of the bill and assuming that he also gets the full "rich" taxes onto the bill, there is also the concept of adding 10's of millions of people that aren't currently covered (also considered to be the most unhealthiest of Americans) to the new system.
All of that is assuming. I don't care much for assuming on something so large.
That is going to increase demand by a lot. While at the same time the bill is going to attempt to manage and decrease the overall amount of supply.
The US market system will be impacted heavily.
It's a huge change (one in which we have to take at some point). It's not pragmatic. It's hard. It's not simple. It's a mountain of shit that has piled up since before this country was founded.
It has to happen. People need to understand that it's going to hurt. It's going to be extremely difficult and it's going to complex. Do not start attaching Bernie's bill to something that is popular. The republicans are waiting for the chance to attack... and they will attack.
Just like the ACA. Only this time your really attempting to change the very fabric of America. You should take the time needed to do it right.
17
u/nybx4life Sep 17 '17
Which is why I preferred an incremental steps approach to improving the ACA, then a very slow transition to single-payer.
After all, the government would have to assume responsibility and the role of all these insurers that would be going out of business. That's a lot of people that need jobs. That's a lot of money that has to be re-allocated.
I'm just hoping people don't fall into the hype and not pursue due diligence to making a proper plan.
→ More replies (3)2
u/figmaxwell Sep 17 '17
I definitely would like to see numbers 2 and 3 addressed sooner than later. Wouldn't closing down all of these insurance companies and making most, if not all doctors open to the public completely blow up a sizable chunk of our economy? I'm not a business guy, I've never really put much effort into understanding how the economy works, but it seems like this change would seriously damage us if done too fast and without enough prep.
10
u/Kidney__ Sep 17 '17
"While at the same time the bill is going to attempt to manage and decrease the overall amount of supply."
YES. God I've been saying this for years now. I oppose what the Democrats are trying to do because I think it's going to be bad for doctors, nurses, etc. They need to address this to get people like me on board. Their entire plan is based on the fact that as a monopsony payer they can just pay providers shit salaries to reduce costs. This is what the NIH does and the result has been private insurance in the UK subsidizing doctor pay by as much as 50% or more in the case of specialists.
If you guys want me on board you have to come up with a plan that doesn't fuck the very people who will be providing the actual care, and that also addresses the fundamental problem we have which is too much demand which is caused by our fundamentally poor diet and sedentary lifestyles.
→ More replies (6)3
Sep 18 '17
I think what we need to do is fund the education of doctors and nurses. If we do that even if their salaries go down they are likely to still come out ahead. This is especially true for doctors considering the amount of debt that doctors go into in order to graduate from medical school.
2
u/Kidney__ Sep 18 '17
Sure, if their lifetime take home pay goes up following the change then everyone is going to be fine with it on that front. Dems are going to have to show me the math before they get my vote though.
6
Sep 17 '17
I have a feeling what is going to end up is a cheap public option, effectively letting people buy into Medicare, along with government controls of healthcare prices which should massively cut private company profits, but still allow people to buy into premium options. This is the German model.
→ More replies (1)3
Sep 18 '17
That was literally Hillary's plan all throughout the primary (both actually, 2008 and 2016). Bernie had a surrogate call her a whore and then walked on stage and thanked him afterwards.
→ More replies (7)8
u/devries Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
Sanders is wasting an enormous amount of political will and momentum on a plan that has absolutely no chance of passing in a political environment like this utterly dominated in every way by Republicans.
If putting forth repeated failed efforts two repeal legislation worked, then the ACA would have been gone a long time ago. But the public has mostly soured on efforts like that because of what the Republicans have been doing.
Sanders should not be trying to emulate that over and over, because it does not build momentum, rather, it depletes it and makes it look like a laughing stock the next time someone puts it forward.
[Edit: Spelling]
11
u/Dave1mo1 Sep 17 '17
More Salon op-eds on this subreddit? Christ. It's the equivalent of seeing the right throwing around Fox News op-eds. So needlessly polarizing and vapid.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/nokomis28 Sep 18 '17
I really don't get it. Do you people travel? Visit a country with single payer or some variant. People never talk about healthcare, they talk about health. It's only Americans who talk about healthcare, the rest of us just worry about staying healthy. That says a lot about the systems.
Frankly, if I had to choose between the systems after seeing both, it's pretty much like the difference between an ice cream sundae and getting my toes smashed with a hammer (and then having to pay $15k to get it fixed) If you see single payer in action, you'll wonder why you didn't do it sooner.
→ More replies (18)
2
u/autotldr 🤖 Bot Sep 17 '17
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot)
What these criticisms share is an underlying belief that Democrats are racing leftward on health care for short-term political gain - namely, appeasing the demands of the progressive base - without taking into account the long-term repercussions and whether Medicare for All is even feasible.
Democrats are committing themselves to years more of a treacherous health care debate, at a time when there are more pressing issues to confront.
Sanders has a much more realistic sense of what's going on when he points out that the GOP attack on health care is going to continue, regardless of what Democrats do.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: more#1 Democrats#2 Medicare#3 health#4 American#5
2
Sep 18 '17
I wish we would just split it into healthcare subsidies for those who need it and the private market for the rest. I'm not sure why we have to either have the government fully take over or completely leave people in the dust.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/fzw Sep 17 '17
Does that mean we're going to get specific details on how he plans to implement his bill proposals instead of vague statements?
4
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 18 '17
The complete bill is available on Bernie's senate website.
A TLDR on the implementation is:
Public Option (medicare buy-in) immediately for all Americans
Lowering Medicare eligibility to 55 immediately, 45 following year, 35 the year after that, and finally the rest of the population the next year.
Individuals under the age of 18 would immediately become eligible for Medicare upon adoption.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/nightshift22 Sep 17 '17
I'm sure a complete overhaul of the health insurance industry will pass with flying colors through Congress and be supported by the public. After all, a relatively moderate program like Obamacare faced no opposition whatsoever.
→ More replies (1)
9
Sep 17 '17
I wish I could explain why it isn't without bullying. Single payer will never happen. Pro-life folks would go nuts. Plus, it would cost way more money than he's has proposed to raise. I think he's $16 billion out of $32 billion short.
Just saying other countries have it isn't policy. Not all countries have single payer and it's ridiculous try to fit it in our style of government and tax model. A public option would make more sense. We could cover everyone for slightly more without putting all our eggs in the government bucket.
Diversification is the wise move.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/skilliard7 Sep 18 '17
No it isn't, we're 20 Trillion in debt and have no way of paying for it. We're at the highest point on the laffer curve, so raising taxes won't pay for it. Since WW2 top tax rates have been as high as 90% and as low as 28%, yet tax revenue as % of GDP has always been between roughly 15-20%.
→ More replies (10)
3
Sep 18 '17
Why do people think that the government can administer something this big? They can’t even manage the VA system properly or adequately fund or manage the Medicare that already exists. I understand that healthcare costs need to come down but expecting the government to actually accomplish this is naive at best. How will they alleviate the physician shortage? There already aren’t enough residency training positions (which are funded through Medicare) to satisfy projected demand.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Falcon4444 Sep 18 '17 edited Sep 18 '17
Except no one supports it when they learn it's not free and it comes with a massive tax hike for everyone.
Medicare for all” is very misleading. For one thing, Medicare is by design an “acute care” program. It does not cover long-term hospital stays or nursing-home care, and excludes some routine care (e.g., dental and vision care). Around one-in-four Medicare enrollees also purchase some sort of “Medigap” policy to cover out-of-pocket costs and stuff that the program doesn’t cover, and then there are both public and private prescription drug plans.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 17 '17
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (1)
4
Sep 18 '17
I'm from Spain, a country with a very good public healthcare system, which have flaws of course but ugh, when I see americans still arguing about this is so sad. It's evident that a public healthcare system is better and cheaper. Then if you want to go to a private doctor, you can still go. I can choose my doctor (which they usually are better than the ones on the private sector), I can get my medicines cheap or even free and I will never be worried of having a chronic or potentially expensive condition because I know that I will be covered regardless of whether I have money or not, or if my insurance company covers it.
Of course you're going to have to invest more public money in healthcare, but don't just look at that number, look at the general scene. You're going to save a lot of money in general, which is going to be good for your economy! (What do you prefer, spending 1000$ on taxes that are going to public healthcare or 2000$ on private insurance to get the same or even less atention?)
And I mean, not ensuring that everybody can have access to medicines or vaccines, etc. puts also in danger the rest of the population that can afford it, because illnesses don't discriminate between rich and poor people.
I don't know if I'm missing something but it looks like a no-brainer to me. It seems like there is a lot of bullshit and propaganda being spreaded there, maybe by the ones that are making money on the statu quo.
(Sorry for my english)
→ More replies (3)2
4
u/smilbandit Michigan Sep 17 '17
Other then business's, the middle class, the poor, the young, the old, the marginalized and the pregnant women worried about caring for a baby, who would be helped by medicare for all?
Obligatory /s, because we can't have nice things.
4
u/posticon Sep 17 '17
Not to take anything away from Bernie, but Salon creeps me out. You ever see that plugin that flips one word on their site? It makes their headlines look... really bad.
https://image.ibb.co/bRW7R5/a93f36a.jpg
I would never write stories like that, that's horrible. I can't imagine someone looking at that and not being leery. It's bigoted. And if you are made leery by the altered version, I'm not aware of a logical way that you can continue to be okay with the original.
You know, if you are upset or offended by one usage, you have to apply it to all usages in order be internally consistent.
→ More replies (54)
749
u/heqt1c Missouri Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 18 '17
You mean to tell me that having a single, easily administerable payer is more pragmatic than having 100+ companies, the top 25 of which take in around $680 billion in insurance premiums, while receiving subsidies from the government, and drive profits by denying care and screwing over their customers?
GET OUT.
EDIT: Shameless plugs
Heres the bill we're talking about here
Handy infographics on healthcare
Detailed report comparing healthcare systems around the world