U.S. House Democrats introduce sweeping 'Medicare for All' bill

[roobaa01]

this bill can be placed on the same level as aocortez new mess green deal as it is costly and not feasible. it should be labeled new mess medi bill like the green deal socialism crab.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Jingthing]

There is a little talked about reason why it's been so hard and will continue to be very hard for the USA to ever transition to civilized method of almost all more advanced nations (universal). 

 

People talk a lot about the various medical and insurance lobbies, and they should. 

 

But this thing is much deeper. What is it? It's that the majority of Americans with full time jobs get good private health insurance paid for by their employers. For this coverage, they are not taxed. It's kind of like welfare for the more fortunate. It's similar to all the tax breaks for homeowners and none for renters. Of course when people lose their jobs, they're exposed to the real world issues of the rest of the population but if they're fortunate enough to get new work soon enough and don't retire until age 65, then this majority group of Americans is NEVER going to be happy with a radical change.

 

I don't have the answer for this. People may say in polls they want universal but if they're in this privileged class when you tell them what they will have to give up for the greater social good, they're going to often say NEVER MIND. 

[Thomas J]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In this case I support the Dems 100%.

The US health system, from my perspective, is terrible and all about profit, when it should be about people needing health care. 

However, they need to take care it doesn't become hijacked by the politicians, bureaucrats and management as the NHS has been.

Edited 7 hours ago by thaibeachlovers

One of the reasons for the costly U.S. healthcare is 'third party pay'  Those insured don't shop for healthcare.  When the "insurance company or government" is paying for it they misuse and over use health care.  Hospitals, Doctors, Clinics, Pharmaceutical companies all have using as much of their services as possible to increase profits so they too are complicit in over prescribing.  In normal transactions the customer limits their purchases based on cost and value.  Take lasik surgery which once cost over $5,000 per eye.  Competition and consumer selection have driven the price to as little as $250 per eye.  Irrespective, the cost of Medicare for All is estimated to be $32.6 Trillion.  That amounts to approximately $200,000 per family in the USA. That is ludicrous. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-medicare-for-all-plan-touted-by-bernie-sanders-would-cost-32-6-trillion/

 

[Jingthing]

There is another, rather dark, reason why Medicare For All might be a marketing mistake.

People over 65 get Medicare already and they have been paying into it for all their working lives.

People over 65 vote in high percentages.

The dark part is many people over 65 will feel, how come a 30 year old gets something "free" that I paid into all my life?

Sure you would want Americans to care about their fellow Americans all getting health care, but in the real world, people are usually not that nice. 

 

Because of all these historical, structural, American cultural peculiarities, massive financial interest issues in the health sector, and groups being played against each other, short of some kind of actual radical revolution which I don't think many people really want, personally I think the only realistic hope is a STEPPED approach. I wish it wasn't so, but if you really look at it, it is. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There is another, rather dark, reason why Medicare For All might be a marketing mistake.

People over 65 get Medicare already and they have been paying into it for all their working lives.

People over 65 vote in high percentages.

The dark part is many people over 65 will feel, how come a 30 year old gets something "free" that I paid into all my life?

Sure you would want Americans to care about their fellow Americans all getting health care, but in the real world, people are usually not that nice. 

 

Because of all these historical, structural, financial interest issues, and groups being played against each other, short of some kind of actual radical revolution which I don't think many people really want, personally I think the only realistic hope is a STEPPED approach. I wish it wasn't so, but if you really look at it, it is. 

 

True. Old people can be pretty mean despite their being the richest group of Americans.

[Thainesss]

35 minutes ago, samran said:

I don’t know how getting a better product and paying less for it can be defined as raping the middle class.

 

But no doubt you’ll find a way. 

 

Yet nobody puts forward objective and unbiased proof that increasing middle class taxes, completely revamping the medical industry, and eliminating the medical insurance industry will actually end up being “cheaper” and of “higher quality”. 

 

Because it wont. You keep saying these things but that doesn’t make them true. Just like Obamacare wasn’t anything they sold it to be. 

 

If it would be cheaper and of better quality then the left would be screaming their system from the rooftops instead of obfuscating and dodging the details of such a plan. 

[samran]

18 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Yet nobody puts forward objective and unbiased proof that increasing middle class taxes, completely revamping the medical industry, and eliminating the medical insurance industry will actually end up being “cheaper” and of “higher quality”. 

 

Because it wont. You keep saying these things but that doesn’t make them true. Just like Obamacare wasn’t anything they sold it to be. 

 

If it would be cheaper and of better quality then the left would be screaming their system from the rooftops instead of obfuscating and dodging the details of such a plan. 

Yeah, as I said, the experience of the other 30 odd OECD countries offers no guides at all to how it would work and how much you’d save in the US. 

 

No guide at all. You’re apparently more special and different to the rest of us.

 

Sarcasm intended. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by samran

[Time Traveller]

21 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

One of the reasons for the costly U.S. healthcare is 'third party pay'  Those insured don't shop for healthcare.  When the "insurance company or government" is paying for it they misuse and over use health care.  Hospitals, Doctors, Clinics, Pharmaceutical companies all have using as much of their services as possible to increase profits so they too are complicit in over prescribing.  In normal transactions the customer limits their purchases based on cost and value.  Take lasik surgery which once cost over $5,000 per eye.  Competition and consumer selection have driven the price to as little as $250 per eye.  Irrespective, the cost of Medicare for All is estimated to be $32.6 Trillion.  That amounts to approximately $200,000 per family in the USA. That is ludicrous. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-medicare-for-all-plan-touted-by-bernie-sanders-would-cost-32-6-trillion/

 

That is ludicrous. It's also not true.

Why would it cost 10 times more than what is already spent on healthcare?....

Instead, the only difference would be who ends up paying.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Time Traveller

[Time Traveller]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There is another, rather dark, reason why Medicare For All might be a marketing mistake.

People over 65 get Medicare already and they have been paying into it for all their working lives.

People over 65 vote in high percentages.

The dark part is many people over 65 will feel, how come a 30 year old gets something "free" that I paid into all my life?

Sure you would want Americans to care about their fellow Americans all getting health care, but in the real world, people are usually not that nice. 

 

Because of all these historical, structural, American cultural peculiarities, massive financial interest issues in the health sector, and groups being played against each other, short of some kind of actual radical revolution which I don't think many people really want, personally I think the only realistic hope is a STEPPED approach. I wish it wasn't so, but if you really look at it, it is. 

I guess you haven't heard about Medicaid?

[Time Traveller]

19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Yet nobody puts forward objective and unbiased proof that increasing middle class taxes, completely revamping the medical industry, and eliminating the medical insurance industry will actually end up being “cheaper” and of “higher quality”. 

 

Because it wont. You keep saying these things but that doesn’t make them true. Just like Obamacare wasn’t anything they sold it to be. 

 

If it would be cheaper and of better quality then the left would be screaming their system from the rooftops instead of obfuscating and dodging the details of such a plan. 

Well, I can say this. Insurance companies exist for one reason only. To make profits.

When you force everyone - with fines for not complying - to buy insurance, the government is basically providing corporate welfare for the insurance industry. Once you cut out insurers, there's savings right there.

Secondly, I don't know what you're talking about "higher quality", the healthcare in the US is the best I've seen anywhere.

The problem is, that it's crazily expensive. Even if you have insurance (which itself is also outrageously expensive).

 

The point is, that x% of GDP is currently being spent on healthcare. Single payer won't make the costs become 10x. It only changes who pays.

You're worried about paying extra in taxes to pay for it. Well, guess what? You'll no longer need to pay $25k per year for your family's overpriced healthcare insurance ! 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Time Traveller

[Kasane]

It's about time. But first the medical/pharma lobby needs to be knee capped. And the bloated Pentagon budget, with unaccounted billions, needs to be slashed. Single payer for all, war for none.

[tlandtday]

1 hour ago, Curt1591 said:

As Chomper Higgot pointed out, Big Medicine - and their accomplices, Blue Cross and AARP, have bought out the politicians for the last 2 decades. 

These are the people that brought us Obamacare (bet you thought it was written for the people!). Now you want them to jack with Medicare !?!

 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=s

However, it needs to be done right.  Obamacare was nothing more than smoke and mirrors largely benefitting the same people providing the insurance.  What is needed is a single payer system strictly regulated by govt.  I am not for a big nanny state but universal govt healthcare is actually far more cost efficient than private as exists in the usa.

[samran]

8 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

Well, I can say this. Insurance companies exist for one reason only. To make profits.

When you force everyone - with fines for not complying - to buy insurance, the government is basically providing corporate welfare for the insurance industry. Once you cut out insurers, there's savings right there.

Secondly, I don't know what you're talking about "higher quality", the healthcare in the US is the best I've seen anywhere.

The problem is, that it's crazily expensive. Even if you have insurance (which itself is also outrageously expensive).

 

The point is, that x% of GDP is currently being spent on healthcare. Single payer won't make the 10x%. It only changes who pays.

You're worried about paying extra in taxes to pay for it. Well, guess what? You'll no longer need to pay $25k per year for your family's overpriced healthcare insurance ! 

The savings come from a number of areas, which are mostly based on basic economics:

 

- Given EVERYONE is in the insurance pool, you’ve broadened the base and the average premium paid becomes less. 

 

- Given a single entity negotiates on behalf of patients to the pharma company’s, you can drive a much better bulk deal on medicines and treatments. The costs come down there.

 

- Cause people aren’t scared to use their medical care, guess what...? they remain healthier and more able to continue their lives as being tax payers. 

 

- Finally, you don’t duplicate administrative costs of different insurance companies. Lower costs from there.

 

There is a plethora of basic economic literature which outlines why medical care, When left to ‘the market’ actually produces less efficient and more expensive outcomes.

 

18 of the 19 top OECD countries have heeded these basic facts. The 19th still has its head in the sand on the issue. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by samran

[Time Traveller]

5 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

However, it needs to be done right.  Obamacare was nothing more than smoke and mirrors largely benefitting the same people providing the insurance.  What is needed is a single payer system strictly regulated by govt.  I am not for a big nanny state but universal govt healthcare is actually far more cost efficient than private as exists in the usa.

Correct, the insurance industry benefited greatly from Obamacare, but there was one small group of people who actually did benefit. Those who had pre-existing conditions that would have been denied insurance preciously with employer or other insurance.

For everyone else, bills skyrocketed.

[tlandtday]

In the usa if you are wealthy you can get the best healthcare just like the wealthy anywhere can get the best education, cars, houses, etc.  Why should that surprise anyone.  But for the average american the system sucks.  Universal healthcare is the best solution and the wealthy or the whiners can always pay extra if they don't like the service.

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, samran said:

The savings come from a number of areas, which are mostly based on basic economics:

 

- Given EVERYONE is in the insurance pool, you’ve broadened the base and the average premium paid becomes less. 

 

- Given a single entity negotiates on behalf of patients to the pharma company’s, you can drive a much better bulk deal on medicines and treatments. The costs come down there.

 

- Cause people aren’t scared to use their medical care, guess what...? they remain healthier and more able to continue their lives as being tax payers. 

 

- Finally, you don’t duplicate administrative costs of different insurance companies. Lower costs from there.

 

There is a plethora of basic economic literature which outlines why medical care, When left to ‘the market’ actually produces less efficient and more expensive outcomes.

 

18 of the 19 top OECD countries have heeded these basic facts. The 19th still has its head in the sand on the issue. 

 

When it comes, if it comes, there's going to be one big trade off that another group of lobbyists is going to fight tooth and nail, and that's tort reform. There's no way in the US that UHC gets passed without capping damages.

[Time Traveller]

12 minutes ago, samran said:

The savings come from a number of areas, which are mostly based on basic economics:

 

- Given EVERYONE is in the insurance pool, you’ve broadened the base and the average premium paid becomes less. 

 

- Given a single entity negotiates on behalf of patients to the pharma company’s, you can drive a much better bulk deal on medicines and treatments. The costs come down there.

 

- Cause people aren’t scared to use their medical care, guess what...? they remain healthier and more able to continue their lives as being tax payers. 

 

- Finally, you don’t duplicate administrative costs of different insurance companies. Lower costs from there.

 

There is a plethora of basic economic literature which outlines why medical care, When left to ‘the market’ actually produces less efficient and more expensive outcomes.

 

18 of the 19 top OECD countries have heeded these basic facts. The 19th still has its head in the sand on the issue. 

Some of what you said is correct and some is not.

"Medicare for All" - a really bad choice for a name - is not intended to provide the best and cheapest healthcare for the nation.

It's intented to provide healthcare for people who otherwise could not afford it, or would become bankrupted from paying what healthcare providers charge. (The reason they charge so much, is because there is no competition)

It's important to understand, that "free market based" healthcare would indeed provide the cheapest healthcare options. What people don't understand is that that cheap does not necessarily mean it's affordable for everyone. (A low income person needing a heart transplant would never be able to afford the cost regardless of whether free markets existed or government paid the costs).

The point is, Medicare for all is not intended to lower the overall cost of healthcare in the country. Although it will when - like you said - cut out the insurers. It's only to be a safety net. People with the means, would (should) still be able to pay for better quality healthcare

Edited February 27, 2019 by Time Traveller

[Hanaguma]

I hear a lot of people lauding the Canadian system. In truth, it's not bad, but... there are many procedures that have long waiting lists and even seeing a specialist can take months. In that time, the patients' condition can deteriorate, they can be in pain, and so on. Hell, the government even publishes the waiting times on the internet!  For example, it takes from one to six months to even get an appointment to see an orthopaedic surgeon. Plus up to six more months to actually get the surgery performed. 

 

However, Canada IS fortunate in that there is an alternative available. Not in Canada, since it is basically illegal for doctors to open private practices. No, if you don't want to wait you can go to the States and have it done by the weekend. 

[samran]

8 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

Some of what you said is correct and some is not.

"Medicare for All" - a really bad choice for a name - is not intended to provide the best and cheapest healthcare for the nation.

It's intented to provide healthcare for people who otherwise could not afford it, or would become bankrupted from paying what healthcare providers charge. (The reason they charge so much, is because there is no competition)

It's important to understand, that "free market based" healthcare would indeed provide the cheapest healthcare options. What people don't understand is that that cheap does not necessarily mean it's affordable for everyone. (A low income person needing a heart transplant would never be able to afford the cost regardless of whether free markets existed or government paid the costs).

The point is, Medicare for all is not intended to lower the overall cost of healthcare in the country. Although it will when - like you said - cut out the insurers. It's only to be a safety net. People with the means, would (should) still be able to pay for better quality healthcare

Not trying to cut you off, but ‘free markets’ tend to fail when it comes to medical care. 

 

Markets worry well when there is choice, variety and competition. That works for most products really well to deliver the lowest costs to the most people possible.

 

Thigbs tend to flip on their head when it comes medical care. Mainly, there is no choice. 

 

You dont choose (for the most part) to get sick. Nor do you get a choice in what you get sick with. 

 

It isn’t like buying a car. You can’t afford a flash one you get a beat up second hand one which mainly does the same job. 

 

No one says ‘I can only afford to break my pinky toe rather than get a stroke’. So choice, which is essential to the free market, it wiped out there and then. 

 

On the supply side, there will never be enough surgeons, heart specialists etc etc. So choice is limited there to, and left to market forces they can charge basically whatever they want. 

 

So a supply demand double whammy from market forces. 

 

For private insurance, people well and truely underestimate their risk. Which is why if left to the market, younger people will never insure and older people will only buy insurance when they are more likely to use it. So costs and premiums there end up being higher.

 

Im a HUGE believer in free markets. But they simply don’t work when it comes to medical care. 

 

[Jingthing]

FDR wanted national health care, just as he wanted and got social security.

Americans love social security, and they would love universal health care too if it had passed back then.

But I think that historical moment (that the UK wisely took) was lost and there aren't going to be any quick and easy solutions for this now that the current (horrible) system is so deeply ingrained.

Obamacare was a flawed too small step in the right direction, but already badly damaged by lack of full Medicaid expansion, aggressive republican opposition, and "trump" killing the mandate that was a vital basis of financing for the program (and ironically originally proposed by republican Romney). 

Lack of nationalized health care is stupid. Foreigners don't understand and they're right not to understand. But all nations have their zones of idiocy that they can't shake, and in the U.S. one of those is about health care access (among others such as gun mania and lack of decent public transport in most of the country). 

At this point in time it's a matter of politics and practicality.

What is the political gain and cost of the democrats going for a very big step vs. whether such a tactic will help them win, and then, if so, what can they actually pass into law. 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

and "trump" killing the mandate that was a vital basis of financing for the program (and ironically originally proposed by republican Romney). 

 

Romney's program was lifted from Nixon's proposed program which was defeated by the Democrats led by Ted Kennedy who was pushing for UHC at that time.

[elmrfudd]

Wait... The lefties blame trump for spending recklessly, but want a massive spending increase locked in forever. 

 

?? 

 

L

[elmrfudd]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

FDR wanted national health care, just as he wanted and got social security.

Americans love social security, and they would love universal health care too if it had passed back then.

But I think that historical moment (that the UK wisely took) was lost and there aren't going to be any quick and easy solutions for this now that the current (horrible) system is so deeply ingrained.

Obamacare was a flawed too small step in the right direction, but already badly damaged by lack of full Medicaid expansion, aggressive republican opposition, and "trump" killing the mandate that was a vital basis of financing for the program (and ironically originally proposed by republican Romney). 

Lack of nationalized health care is stupid. Foreigners don't understand and they're right not to understand. But all nations have their zones of idiocy that they can't shake, and in the U.S. one of those is about health care access (among others such as gun mania and lack of decent public transport in most of the country). 

At this point in time it's a matter of politics and practicality.

What is the political gain and cost of the democrats going for a very big step vs. whether such a tactic will help them win, and then, if so, what can they actually pass into law. 

 

So anyone care to be factual about how social security started, and how it is now?

For instance the low tax rate then versus now? 

Or the fiscal malfeasance of the congress

pilfering the funds for other purposes? 

[Thainesss]

1 hour ago, samran said:

Yeah, as I said, the experience of the other 30 odd OECD countries offers no guides at all to how it would work and how much you’d save in the US. 

 

No guide at all. You’re apparently more special and different to the rest of us.

 

Sarcasm intended. 

 

Yes, those are all other countries, you know, not the USA. The problem with comparing the USA to other models is that it completely avoids the problem of actually getting from where we are now, to socialized medical care. It’s the details of doing that and not crashing the economy, alienating massive deaths of the population, overtaxing and overburdening the working class. The devil is in the details and not a single democrat has come forward with a viable plan that addresses this glaring issue. 

 

But other countries do it!!! Is not an actual plan. 

[samran]

12 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Yes, those are all other countries, you know, not the USA. The problem with comparing the USA to other models is that it completely avoids the problem of actually getting from where we are now, to socialized medical care. It’s the details of doing that and not crashing the economy, alienating massive deaths of the population, overtaxing and overburdening the working class. The devil is in the details and not a single democrat has come forward with a viable plan that addresses this glaring issue. 

 

But other countries do it!!! Is not an actual plan. 

What, you think other countries always just sort of always 'had' single payer systems? No, they had to introduced them at some point. Australia introduced its version of it in 1983.

 

 

And stop using the world 'socialised' medical care. Just makes you out as a brainwashed poster who has no idea what they are talking about. There are many models of single payer, and not all of them are state based, Singapore, Switzerland and Germany to name a few. You've also got the experience of Medicare in the US to go off.

 

Its not as if the arguments you are making against a shift haven't been made before.

 

And why is the USA so bloody special?

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by samran

[Thainesss]

9 minutes ago, samran said:

And stop using the world 'socialised' medical care. Just makes you out as a brainwashed poster who has no idea what they are talking about.

 

Look pal, no reason for you to get all emotional & have a public meltdown. 

 

I can can and will use whatever words I choose and if you libs want my good self to support your positions you better be prepared to tell me what it’s going to cost ME in taxation and inconvience. Your party has already raped me out of thousand and thousands and thousands of dollars over the years of Obamacare all while lying directly to my face while doing so and calling people like me liars for being pissed off about it. 

 

NOW you want to push an even more extreme position onto the population without any viable plan to implement it. So spare me the garbage takes and deflections.

[samran]

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Look pal, no reason for you to get all emotional & have a public meltdown. 

 

I can can and will use whatever words I choose and if you libs want my good self to support your positions you better be prepared to tell me what it’s going to cost ME in taxation and inconvience. Your party has already raped me out of thousand and thousands and thousands of dollars over the years of Obamacare all while lying directly to my face while doing so and calling people like me liars for being pissed off about it. 

 

NOW you want to push an even more extreme position onto the population without any viable plan to implement it. So spare me the garbage takes and deflections.

There is your first problem. You think I am a 'liberal'.

 

And coming into line with what the rest of the world does isn't 'extreme'.

 

I'm just smart enough to know that your system benefits the insurance companies, and very few others. But you seem happy to support them, so be it.

Edited February 27, 2019 by samran

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

Wait... The lefties blame trump for spending recklessly, but want a massive spending increase locked in forever. 

 

?? 

 

L

Do you actually believe that people who are for spending on citizens health care are also for spending on wars and welfare (GOP & 45’s tax giv-a-way) for the 1%? 5555555!! 

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, samran said:

There is your first problem. You think I am a 'liberal'.

 

And coming into line with what the rest of the world does isn't 'extreme'.

 

I'm just smart enough to know that your system benefits the insurance companies, and very few others. But you seem happy to support them, so be it.

 

You know what’s worse than a liberal? A liberal that’s too ashamed to admit he’s a liberal. 

 

And apprently youre not smart enough to know that Obamacare took an already optional system of insurance providers and made it mandatory for the population and did precisely what you’re railing against in your last paragraph. 

 

Now that same party wants socialized medicine but can’t (or won’t) tell people how they plan to go about it (giant federal tax increase). 

 

Everyone wants healthcare, that’s not even debatable. Everyone also wants to have money to do stuff. 

[Thainesss]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Do you actually believe that people who are for spending on citizens health care are also for spending on wars and welfare (GOP & 45’s tax giv-a-way) for the 1%? 5555555!! 

 

Democrats are the biggest warmongers known to humanity and are notorious tax & spend politicians. If you think that Dems are going to scale anything back on any front, you’re delusional.