America since the 80's is a stupid country and American exceptionalism is a disease.
Why so against Medicare for All or a similar system?
@Jacanuk said:
@mattbbpl said:
@Jacanuk: please describe it.
Sure, a universal healthcare based system where people who can´t afford or have a decent healthcare plan can get treatment.
People over a certain income will not be eligible, and people with certain pre-conditions will also not be.
So people with specific illnesses won't get the medical care they need because it's pre-conditions? Wow.
@Jacanuk said:
@mattbbpl said:
@Jacanuk: How are you advocating to control the costs that we both agree are a market failure?
That will be the major problem.
You can do it a few ways which all have its pro and cons,
1) Max budget each year, for administration cost, wages, medicine cost etc... (The cons is that it may end up making healthcare the same mess it is now where people can´t get some medications because the cost is to high)
2) Law change so doctors and healthcare professionals can´t be sued and instead make like some European countries have a central federal/state-controlled "malpractice fund where all states and federal put in a % each year of the total budget for healthcare"
There are other ways but it will be difficult to control the cost, especially if you want the best medicine and the best staff.
Other countries negotiate lower prices for prescriptions and there is no reason they US cannot. We can also use more generic drugs.
Budget? How do you budget for wages as they would vary each year and from doctor to doctor etc based on how busy they are.
Why should taxes pay for malpractice especially when you advocate not allowing everyone to use the service?
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@mattbbpl said:
@Jacanuk: How are you advocating to control the costs that we both agree are a market failure?
That will be the major problem.
You can do it a few ways which all have its pro and cons,
1) Max budget each year, for administration cost, wages, medicine cost etc... (The cons is that it may end up making healthcare the same mess it is now where people can´t get some medications because the cost is to high)
2) Law change so doctors and healthcare professionals can´t be sued and instead make like some European countries have a central federal/state-controlled "malpractice fund where all states and federal put in a % each year of the total budget for healthcare"
There are other ways but it will be difficult to control the cost, especially if you want the best medicine and the best staff.
Other countries negotiate lower prices for prescriptions and there is no reason they US cannot. We can also use more generic drugs.
Budget? How do you budget for wages as they would vary each year and from doctor to doctor etc based on how busy they are.
Why should taxes pay for malpractice especially when you advocate not allowing everyone to use the service?
Come on guys, nobody knew healthcare would be this complicated.
@mattbbpl said:
@Jacanuk: The first option doesn't address anything. Those in the public needs based tier would simply face cuts to come in under budget as the GOP is pushing for now with block grant proposals. Those in the private tier would face the same issues they face today.
Option 2 is a fantasy of you think that alone will bring costs in line. While it might have a marginal impact, that isn't among the core issues driving costs.
Option 1 is not going to solve the problem, only legislations will be the ultimate answer to the problem with the massive overhead costs.
And as to the cuts, well that will, of course, have to be addressed. That is why the universal plan has to be a bipartisan deal.
Option 2 was never said to be the only way to bring down costs, you asked for suggestions that were suggestions.
Also coming up with a proper and workable plan is not something that can be done in a forum or in a post.
@eoten said:
1. When has government ever stuck to a budget? And medications cost as much as they do BECAUSE of government, with FDA preventing a lot of generic brand medications from competing to reduce costs.
2. Making doctors and healthcare professional unaccountable isn't going to fix anything. If a doctor messed up a bypass surgery on your spouse because he was a bit hung over from the night before, should he not be held accountable? Why should taxpayers have to pay for the mistakes or malpractice of an individual responsible? That won't reduce costs at all.
Writing a blank check does not reduce costs, historically it has increased costs because people are no longer held financially responsible for the failure of a market. Has guaranteed student loans reduced to cost of college tuition for example? No, ones funding became guaranteed, costs went up and everyone associated with public universities granted themselves pay raises at the financial burden of the student. Do you really think the healthcare profession isn't going to do exactly the same thing?
Competition for customers, not blank checks from the government and monopolized industries, are what reduces costs. And single-payer anything is just a government owned monopoly.
1: Government budgets are kept all the time. Also, no the cost of medication is not because of the Government unless you want them to hit harder on legislation that makes it illegal to raise the cost over a certain % profit.
2: Never said unaccountable, i said don´t allow the court system to be the decider. As in Europe take it out of the hands of a court system, and let it be experts and professionals who look and make those decisions.
Also, i never said writing a blank check, in fact I said the opposite I said universal need-based healthcare is the way forward.
The US creating a public health system is only a matter of political will. By political will I mean having balls, which is something severely lacking. And in all honesty I don't see it happening, because you'll need a long term bipatisan compromise on a honest budget and most surely lobbies would sabotage that. So even if it works at first it will be sabotaged just to prove it can't be done.
@Jacanuk said:
@mattbbpl said:
@Jacanuk: The first option doesn't address anything. Those in the public needs based tier would simply face cuts to come in under budget as the GOP is pushing for now with block grant proposals. Those in the private tier would face the same issues they face today.
Option 2 is a fantasy of you think that alone will bring costs in line. While it might have a marginal impact, that isn't among the core issues driving costs.
Option 1 is not going to solve the problem, only legislations will be the ultimate answer to the problem with the massive overhead costs.
And as to the cuts, well that will, of course, have to be addressed. That is why the universal plan has to be a bipartisan deal.
Option 2 was never said to be the only way to bring down costs, you asked for suggestions that were suggestions.
Also coming up with a proper and workable plan is not something that can be done in a forum or in a post.
So you have no proposals to address the issues that we previously agreed are problems, but are dismissing proven solutions in use today because.... why?
@Jacanuk said:
@eoten said:
1. When has government ever stuck to a budget? And medications cost as much as they do BECAUSE of government, with FDA preventing a lot of generic brand medications from competing to reduce costs.
2. Making doctors and healthcare professional unaccountable isn't going to fix anything. If a doctor messed up a bypass surgery on your spouse because he was a bit hung over from the night before, should he not be held accountable? Why should taxpayers have to pay for the mistakes or malpractice of an individual responsible? That won't reduce costs at all.
Writing a blank check does not reduce costs, historically it has increased costs because people are no longer held financially responsible for the failure of a market. Has guaranteed student loans reduced to cost of college tuition for example? No, ones funding became guaranteed, costs went up and everyone associated with public universities granted themselves pay raises at the financial burden of the student. Do you really think the healthcare profession isn't going to do exactly the same thing?
Competition for customers, not blank checks from the government and monopolized industries, are what reduces costs. And single-payer anything is just a government owned monopoly.
1: Government budgets are kept all the time. Also, no the cost of medication is not because of the Government unless you want them to hit harder on legislation that makes it illegal to raise the cost over a certain % profit.
2: Never said unaccountable, i said don´t allow the court system to be the decider. As in Europe take it out of the hands of a court system, and let it be experts and professionals who look and make those decisions.
Also, i never said writing a blank check, in fact I said the opposite I said universal need-based healthcare is the way forward.
We already have a universal "need-based" healthcare system called Medicaid that works for anyone who cannot afford health insurance and also includes that could, if not for medical expenses due to pre-existing issues. What more do you want?
@phbz said:
The US creating a public health system is only a matter of political will. By political will I mean having balls, which is something severely lacking. And in all honesty I don't see it happening, because you'll need a long term bipatisan compromise on a honest budget and most surely lobbies would sabotage that. So even if it works at first it will be sabotaged just to prove it can't be done.
Just as Obamacare was designed to sabotage the affordable healthcare system we had just so they could point to the mess and say the only fix is single-payer? Interesting how much the government sabotages intentionally and tells you the solution is more government.
@eoten said:
@phbz said:
The US creating a public health system is only a matter of political will. By political will I mean having balls, which is something severely lacking. And in all honesty I don't see it happening, because you'll need a long term bipatisan compromise on a honest budget and most surely lobbies would sabotage that. So even if it works at first it will be sabotaged just to prove it can't be done.
Just as Obamacare was designed to sabotage the affordable healthcare system we had just so they could point to the mess and say the only fix is single-payer? Interesting how much the government sabotages intentionally and tells you the solution is more government.
No that's false.
@redviperofdorne said:
Not a fan of more government control and Bernie can't even come forward with a solid plan to pay for it, let alone what the true total cost of it all. I mean just look at Vermont. Their local government was in favour of it and tried to implement it. At the end of the day, they realized that it would have cost way too much money and would have crippled their economy if they tried to fund it. And that is exactly the kind of problem that would happen if we tried to do this nationwide.
M4A is good in theory but unrealistic. We could make healthcare far more affordable for sure but government-run healthcare isn't the answer.
It is in every other developed country including higher quality of life stats.
@horgen said:
I'm curious. Why are you guys(Americans) generally so against it?
I'm not.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@phbz said:
The US creating a public health system is only a matter of political will. By political will I mean having balls, which is something severely lacking. And in all honesty I don't see it happening, because you'll need a long term bipatisan compromise on a honest budget and most surely lobbies would sabotage that. So even if it works at first it will be sabotaged just to prove it can't be done.
Just as Obamacare was designed to sabotage the affordable healthcare system we had just so they could point to the mess and say the only fix is single-payer? Interesting how much the government sabotages intentionally and tells you the solution is more government.
No that's false.
Must be a Republican :P
@horgen said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@phbz said:
The US creating a public health system is only a matter of political will. By political will I mean having balls, which is something severely lacking. And in all honesty I don't see it happening, because you'll need a long term bipatisan compromise on a honest budget and most surely lobbies would sabotage that. So even if it works at first it will be sabotaged just to prove it can't be done.
Just as Obamacare was designed to sabotage the affordable healthcare system we had just so they could point to the mess and say the only fix is single-payer? Interesting how much the government sabotages intentionally and tells you the solution is more government.
No that's false.
Must be a Republican :P
Get back to me when you have actually dealt with Obamacare. The architect of Obamacare admitted that it was past by deception, that if people actually knew what it was, none of them would have supported it. He specifically refers to the stupidity of American voters. That means the political left who supported it. And congressmen who voted for it have admitted it was designed to be a step towards single payer.
When you have to create legislation out of lies and deception to create enough of a problem to pave the way for their single payer bullcrap, then I am proven absolutely correct.
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
1: Government budgets are kept all the time. Also, no the cost of medication is not because of the Government unless you want them to hit harder on legislation that makes it illegal to raise the cost over a certain % profit.
2: Never said unaccountable, i said don´t allow the court system to be the decider. As in Europe take it out of the hands of a court system, and let it be experts and professionals who look and make those decisions.
Also, i never said writing a blank check, in fact I said the opposite I said universal need-based healthcare is the way forward.
We already have a universal "need-based" healthcare system called Medicaid that works for anyone who cannot afford health insurance and also includes that could, if not for medical expenses due to pre-existing issues. What more do you want?
No, we don´t have a system that is universal and takes care of everything who actually needs it.
Medicaid is not a universal need-based system.
@Jacanuk said:
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
1: Government budgets are kept all the time. Also, no the cost of medication is not because of the Government unless you want them to hit harder on legislation that makes it illegal to raise the cost over a certain % profit.
2: Never said unaccountable, i said don´t allow the court system to be the decider. As in Europe take it out of the hands of a court system, and let it be experts and professionals who look and make those decisions.
Also, i never said writing a blank check, in fact I said the opposite I said universal need-based healthcare is the way forward.
We already have a universal "need-based" healthcare system called Medicaid that works for anyone who cannot afford health insurance and also includes that could, if not for medical expenses due to pre-existing issues. What more do you want?
No, we don´t have a system that is universal and takes care of everything who actually needs it.
Medicaid is not a universal need-based system.
What in your twisted mind do you mean by universal? "universal healthcare" covers everybody and needs based is only available to those of low income or with high medical costs. So you need to clarify what it is you actually want.
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
No, we don´t have a system that is universal and takes care of everything who actually needs it.
Medicaid is not a universal need-based system.
What in your twisted mind do you mean by universal? "universal healthcare" covers everybody and needs based is only available to those of low income or with high medical costs. So you need to clarify what it is you actually want.
I am suggesting a universal system where someone who really needs it can walk in, get treated and walk out again without one single time being confronted with "cost" or being limited by "cheapest possible"
Medicaid is bound by rules and laws which keeps the cost to a minimum by also limiting the tests and care someone can get.
I hope you get the difference here.
@Jacanuk said:
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
No, we don´t have a system that is universal and takes care of everything who actually needs it.
Medicaid is not a universal need-based system.
What in your twisted mind do you mean by universal? "universal healthcare" covers everybody and needs based is only available to those of low income or with high medical costs. So you need to clarify what it is you actually want.
I am suggesting a universal system where someone who really needs it can walk in, get treated and walk out again without one single time being confronted with "cost" or being limited by "cheapest possible"
Medicaid is bound by rules and laws which keeps the cost to a minimum by also limiting the tests and care someone can get.
I hope you get the difference here.
How do you determine if they need it if they just walk in? And Medicaid is bound by rules and laws. Rules and laws that reserve the program to those who need it. And of course it limits tests and care. If I was on Medicaid I could still get whatever was necessary to keep me alive, I just couldn't get liposuction and breast implants under it.
It sounds to me like you want an honor based system with no restrictions which you would have absolutely no chance at all in keeping affordable for those who fund it.
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
No, we don´t have a system that is universal and takes care of everything who actually needs it.
Medicaid is not a universal need-based system.
What in your twisted mind do you mean by universal? "universal healthcare" covers everybody and needs based is only available to those of low income or with high medical costs. So you need to clarify what it is you actually want.
I am suggesting a universal system where someone who really needs it can walk in, get treated and walk out again without one single time being confronted with "cost" or being limited by "cheapest possible"
Medicaid is bound by rules and laws which keeps the cost to a minimum by also limiting the tests and care someone can get.
I hope you get the difference here.
How do you determine if they need it if they just walk in? And Medicaid is bound by rules and laws. Rules and laws that reserve the program to those who need it. And of course it limits tests and care. If I was on Medicaid I could still get whatever was necessary to keep me alive, I just couldn't get liposuction and breast implants under it.
It sounds to me like you want an honor based system with no restrictions which you would have absolutely no chance at all in keeping affordable for those who fund it.
How do you determine if someone with a broken bone has a broken bone? by examination of course Also no Medicaid is not just limiting the people who can get support, it´s also limiting the cost and the measures a doctor can take to treat/cure someone.
And no I don´t want an honour based system, I want a system where if you are sick and a doctor finds you to be sick, you can get the proper care.
If you are under a certain wage.
@Jacanuk said:
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
No, we don´t have a system that is universal and takes care of everything who actually needs it.
Medicaid is not a universal need-based system.
What in your twisted mind do you mean by universal? "universal healthcare" covers everybody and needs based is only available to those of low income or with high medical costs. So you need to clarify what it is you actually want.
I am suggesting a universal system where someone who really needs it can walk in, get treated and walk out again without one single time being confronted with "cost" or being limited by "cheapest possible"
Medicaid is bound by rules and laws which keeps the cost to a minimum by also limiting the tests and care someone can get.
I hope you get the difference here.
How do you determine if they need it if they just walk in? And Medicaid is bound by rules and laws. Rules and laws that reserve the program to those who need it. And of course it limits tests and care. If I was on Medicaid I could still get whatever was necessary to keep me alive, I just couldn't get liposuction and breast implants under it.
It sounds to me like you want an honor based system with no restrictions which you would have absolutely no chance at all in keeping affordable for those who fund it.
How do you determine if someone with a broken bone has a broken bone? by examination of course Also no Medicaid is not just limiting the people who can get support, it´s also limiting the cost and the measures a doctor can take to treat/cure someone.
And no I don´t want an honour based system, I want a system where if you are sick and a doctor finds you to be sick, you can get the proper care.
If you are under a certain wage.
Do you think somebody who walks into a hospital, or is carried in, will have time to verify their income and be checked out before they go into an operating room? No, of course they do not. If someone doesn't have insurance, and do go to an emergency room and cannot afford to pay their bill, Medicaid takes those costs into consideration when checking out your financial situation, and retro-actively pay those costs if you are found to be "in need."
Everything you say you want we already have. It's a lie by those pushing for single-payer that we have poor people dying from a lack of insurance.
@eoten said:
@Jacanuk said:
How do you determine if someone with a broken bone has a broken bone? by examination of course Also no Medicaid is not just limiting the people who can get support, it´s also limiting the cost and the measures a doctor can take to treat/cure someone.
And no I don´t want an honour based system, I want a system where if you are sick and a doctor finds you to be sick, you can get the proper care.
If you are under a certain wage.
Do you think somebody who walks into a hospital, or is carried in, will have time to verify their income and be checked out before they go into an operating room? No, of course they do not. If someone doesn't have insurance, and do go to an emergency room and cannot afford to pay their bill, Medicaid takes those costs into consideration when checking out your financial situation, and retro-actively pay those costs if you are found to be "in need."
Everything you say you want we already have. It's a lie by those pushing for single-payer that we have poor people dying from a lack of insurance.
And if someone walks in and needs emergency care it wouldn´t be any different than today, almost all hospitals have to provide you with emergency care
And if someone walks in with no visible injuries and are not about to die, they would be able to provide their insurance details as much as they would be able to provide their income.
And no everything I say we do not have now, we have a crap Obamacare, a crap Medicaid and a system where you can get financially ruined because the care is either shit or too expensive because you have 50$ too much income.
@Jacanuk: And you won't get that sorted unless you have a public health system, or at the very least the government regulating directly private sector prices (which I consider worse) since you will always have to deal with the issue of hyper inflationated prices. Be it with the states paying the insurance companies or the regular citizen being caught in debt.
I know you guys hate the idea of a public health system because bogeyman communism bad, but most European countries have both a private and public system working in parallel. And competition with public pushes the private sector to offer a quality service to justify the higher prices while keeping prices somewhat competitive.
@phbz said:
@Jacanuk: And you won't get that sorted unless you have a public health system, or at the very least the government regulating directly private sector prices (which I consider worse) since you will always have to deal with the issue of hyper inflationated prices. Be it with the states paying the insurance companies or the regular citizen being caught in debt.
I know you guys hate the idea of a public health system because bogeyman communism bad, but most European countries have both a private and public system working in parallel. And competition with public pushes the private sector to offer a quality service to justify the higher prices while keeping prices somewhat competitive.
I know we will never get that with the current private controlled health-care system, which is why it has to be a public-healthcare system controlled and run by state and federal governments.
I am not that against Bernie's idea except for the fact that he wants it completely universal for all no matter their income or bank account.
And does anyone really think it´s fair a person like Jeff Bezos could get the same treatment and care as someone who is on welfare and lives in the slums,
@Jacanuk said:
@phbz said:
@Jacanuk: And you won't get that sorted unless you have a public health system, or at the very least the government regulating directly private sector prices (which I consider worse) since you will always have to deal with the issue of hyper inflationated prices. Be it with the states paying the insurance companies or the regular citizen being caught in debt.
I know you guys hate the idea of a public health system because bogeyman communism bad, but most European countries have both a private and public system working in parallel. And competition with public pushes the private sector to offer a quality service to justify the higher prices while keeping prices somewhat competitive.
I know we will never get that with the current private controlled health-care system, which is why it has to be a public-healthcare system controlled and run by state and federal governments.
I am not that against Bernie's idea except for the fact that he wants it completely universal for all no matter their income or bank account.
And does anyone really think it´s fair a person like Jeff Bezos could get the same treatment and care as someone who is on welfare and lives in the slums,
Who are you saying it isn't fair to? Are you saying the person who can afford it, but gets it anyway is unfair to the poor person, or it's unfair to Bezos that he can spend more, but doesn't get anything better?
@Jacanuk: Universal means tax contributions are also universal, and they should be relative to income. So someone like Bezos using the system is not that absurd. And in my experience most high income people will still choose to go private . But I think it's fair that if someone deducts for the system should have the right to use it.
@phbz said:
@Jacanuk: Universal means tax contributions are also universal, and they should be relative to income. So someone like Bezos using the system is not that absurd. And in my experience most high income people will still choose to go private . But I think it's fair that if someone deducts for the system should have the right to use it.
Of course the Bezo´s and rich will go private, that is given. But my point was that it should not be for everyone, it should not be for someone who can afford a decent plan on their own, like someone with above 100k a year with 2 cars and a decent house.
Part of it is inertia. People are often skeptical of anything new. But also, Bernie's plan is to eliminate any other health care plans in the country. It's his plan or nothing. I'd be more for it, if they offered medicare for all as a baseline plan, but still let people keep their employer offered plans if they prefer.
In some countries, forms of socialized medicine work very well, in others not so much. The trouble with the US is that our government is so full of checks and balances, that it's hard to get anything done, let alone a massive plan like healthcare.
@SUD123456 said:
Because Americans are geniuses. Much higher costs than your peers, worse health outcomes than your peers.
But it is a free market! But it isn't, because of asymmetrical information and power imbalance between buyers and sellers.
But the research, who would research these drugs! The same ones who do now.
Fact: US drug companies spend on average at least 1.5 times more money on their sales and marketing departments annually as they do on research & development....because your 'free market' is busy pedalling their products to every doctor and hospital and DTC ads to you.
One of the dirtiest 'secrets' in US drug companies is how much they spend on pedaling their product. Over the decades a few courageous drug company senior executives have even spoken about how obscene it is, but no one can break the cycle in isolation...either the whole system changes or nothing changes.
Omg, who would research? Spends 1.5 times as much on their drug pushers. Genius.
I believe it costs a drug company 5 billion to bring a new medicine to the market from scratch. I'm not defending drug costs, I think these companies are screwing the US public, but the current system is not cheap to make a novel medicine. The FDA is very tight about regulations for new drugs - which is both very good and very bad in ways.
@sonicare said:
@SUD123456 said:
Because Americans are geniuses. Much higher costs than your peers, worse health outcomes than your peers.
But it is a free market! But it isn't, because of asymmetrical information and power imbalance between buyers and sellers.
But the research, who would research these drugs! The same ones who do now.
Fact: US drug companies spend on average at least 1.5 times more money on their sales and marketing departments annually as they do on research & development....because your 'free market' is busy pedalling their products to every doctor and hospital and DTC ads to you.
One of the dirtiest 'secrets' in US drug companies is how much they spend on pedaling their product. Over the decades a few courageous drug company senior executives have even spoken about how obscene it is, but no one can break the cycle in isolation...either the whole system changes or nothing changes.
Omg, who would research? Spends 1.5 times as much on their drug pushers. Genius.
I believe it costs a drug company 5 billion to bring a new medicine to the market from scratch. I'm not defending drug costs, I think these companies are screwing the US public, but the current system is not cheap to make a novel medicine. The FDA is very tight about regulations for new drugs - which is both very good and very bad in ways.
More like half that. If that site can be trusted.
@sonicare said:
@SUD123456 said:
Because Americans are geniuses. Much higher costs than your peers, worse health outcomes than your peers.
But it is a free market! But it isn't, because of asymmetrical information and power imbalance between buyers and sellers.
But the research, who would research these drugs! The same ones who do now.
Fact: US drug companies spend on average at least 1.5 times more money on their sales and marketing departments annually as they do on research & development....because your 'free market' is busy pedalling their products to every doctor and hospital and DTC ads to you.
One of the dirtiest 'secrets' in US drug companies is how much they spend on pedaling their product. Over the decades a few courageous drug company senior executives have even spoken about how obscene it is, but no one can break the cycle in isolation...either the whole system changes or nothing changes.
Omg, who would research? Spends 1.5 times as much on their drug pushers. Genius.
I believe it costs a drug company 5 billion to bring a new medicine to the market from scratch. I'm not defending drug costs, I think these companies are screwing the US public, but the current system is not cheap to make a novel medicine. The FDA is very tight about regulations for new drugs - which is both very good and very bad in ways.
Meaning you are susceptible to the drug company propaganda.
The absolute cost to bring a drug to the market is irrelevant. The issue is whether you can raise the capital to do so and can you receive patent protection and sufficient pricing margins from a sufficient number of customers to recover that cost and acquire an adequate return.
Just like the average pipeline costs X billion. Or the average new platform and factory tooling for the auto industry. Or anything else requiring a significant upfront investment. Drug R&D is no different.
And the point that I am making is that they spend far more selling their drugs than they do on R&D. If you went to a single payer system you would eliminate a huge % of those costs from the system which would drive down healthcare costs in the US considerably. Those costs are not providing better care or patient outcomes. They are simply paying competing drug pushers to have a large army of people out in the field everyday, not unlike the illicit drug trade. Zero societal value at huge cost.
Why didn't M4A work in Vermont? because they realized the high taxes needed to cover the cost would cripple their economy. Vermont is a key example as to why M4A won't work. Universal doesn't mean cheaper. There are plenty of other more affordable ways we could cheapen healthcare in this country without taking on the massive debt that M4A would cause.
Because the concept of universal healthcare is scary and different, despite it being successfully done in numerous countries, all the while being more efficient.
However, I feel that there is a concern whether the government would be able to implement it successfully without screwing over its citizens. That being said, stop electing politicians who believe in small government and will actively sabotage plans like this by adding bureaucratic regulations that screws over people. Seriously, I hate those type of politicians. They're scumbags.
And listen to experienced experts and individuals who know how to best implement the system.
@redviperofdorne said:
Why didn't M4A work in Vermont? because they realized the high taxes needed to cover the cost would cripple their economy. Vermont is a key example as to why M4A won't work. Universal doesn't mean cheaper. There are plenty of other more affordable ways we could cheapen healthcare in this country without taking on the massive debt that M4A would cause.
Perhaps because it's an individual state doing this rather than an entire country committing to such a plan.... And perhaps there are reasons as to why M4A failed rather than because it's universal healthcare.
Seriously, our current system isn't working. It's not efficient and is too expensive for the typical American.
@drunk_pi: I totally agree our current system isn't working. That much we can agree on. I would like to see more reasonable changes first before I can trust this government to properly fund and run a healthcare system. I would like an actual laid out plan that isn't simply "tax the rich" or "if we want to get it done, we can". Andrew Yang had a great plan to fund Universal Basic Income, It was detailed and well thought out. It was explained every step of the way, Bernie hasn't provided that same kind of transparency and that is where he lost me.
I am also not a fan of banning private insurance, I think that is a step too far. If the government provided insurance is so good, you wouldn't need to ban private insurance. It would just fade out.
@redviperofdorne said:
@drunk_pi: I totally agree our current system isn't working. That much we can agree on. I would like to see more reasonable changes first before I can trust this government to properly fund and run a healthcare system. I would like an actual laid out plan that isn't simply "tax the rich" or "if we want to get it done, we can". Andrew Yang had a great plan to fund Universal Basic Income, It was detailed and well thought out. It was explained every step of the way, Bernie hasn't provided that same kind of transparency and that is where he lost me.
I am also not a fan of banning private insurance, I think that is a step too far. If the government provided insurance is so good, you wouldn't need to ban private insurance. It would just fade out.
It would more likely get lobbied out of existence by private insurance companies.
@Serraph105: I think we should do what Biden wants to and expand on Obamacare, which has already been proven to work and at a fraction of the cost.
@mattbbpl said:
I recall the GOP apoplectic about Obamacare, claiming it was socialism that would lead to the downfall of America and death panels.
That party is going to claim any health reform will destroy the country, so...
Don't forget about the death panels. No socialist takeover of healthcare is complete without them.
@Serraph105 said:
@mattbbpl said:
I recall the GOP apoplectic about Obamacare, claiming it was socialism that would lead to the downfall of America and death panels.
That party is going to claim any health reform will destroy the country, so...
Don't forget about the death panels. No socialist takeover of healthcare is complete without them.
Which ones again? The justice system death panels? :P
@horgen said:
@Serraph105 said:
@mattbbpl said:
I recall the GOP apoplectic about Obamacare, claiming it was socialism that would lead to the downfall of America and death panels.
That party is going to claim any health reform will destroy the country, so...
Don't forget about the death panels. No socialist takeover of healthcare is complete without them.
Which ones again? The justice system death panels? :P
lol well those clearly exist.
@judaspete said:
The view among American conservatives for about the last 50 years has been that the government is too incompetent to do anything right. Private sector is always better and more efficient. This mindset gets tossed out the window when they talk about our military, but that is the lone exception.
the military, despite being a government organization, is fantastic and we should throw more money at them.
@mattbbpl said:
@horgen: To emphasize: "$450 billion per year"
Per... Year..
that's going to be a LOT of pissed off insurance companies, hospital administrators, and other various paper-pushers.
@sonicare said:
@SUD123456 said:
Because Americans are geniuses. Much higher costs than your peers, worse health outcomes than your peers.
But it is a free market! But it isn't, because of asymmetrical information and power imbalance between buyers and sellers.
But the research, who would research these drugs! The same ones who do now.
Fact: US drug companies spend on average at least 1.5 times more money on their sales and marketing departments annually as they do on research & development....because your 'free market' is busy pedalling their products to every doctor and hospital and DTC ads to you.
One of the dirtiest 'secrets' in US drug companies is how much they spend on pedaling their product. Over the decades a few courageous drug company senior executives have even spoken about how obscene it is, but no one can break the cycle in isolation...either the whole system changes or nothing changes.
Omg, who would research? Spends 1.5 times as much on their drug pushers. Genius.
I believe it costs a drug company 5 billion to bring a new medicine to the market from scratch. I'm not defending drug costs, I think these companies are screwing the US public, but the current system is not cheap to make a novel medicine. The FDA is very tight about regulations for new drugs - which is both very good and very bad in ways.
The question I have is this. With so many so-called altruistic billionaires in the DNC and working with the left who support government forced healthcare because of drug costs, why isn't Buffet, Soros, Bloomberg, Steyr, or any of the others not funding medical research to bring lower cost, more affordable competing drugs to the market? It's easy to whine about the people who actually do spend billions of dollars in research for cures, it's harder for any of them with actual money to actually put that money where their mouths are.
So if there is a straight up cure for diabetes that could save millions but the evil drug companies are keeping it from us so they can charge people a lifetime of medications, surely these people have enough money to pay for the research to develop those cures instead.
@eoten said:
@sonicare said:
@SUD123456 said:
Because Americans are geniuses. Much higher costs than your peers, worse health outcomes than your peers.
But it is a free market! But it isn't, because of asymmetrical information and power imbalance between buyers and sellers.
But the research, who would research these drugs! The same ones who do now.
Fact: US drug companies spend on average at least 1.5 times more money on their sales and marketing departments annually as they do on research & development....because your 'free market' is busy pedalling their products to every doctor and hospital and DTC ads to you.
One of the dirtiest 'secrets' in US drug companies is how much they spend on pedaling their product. Over the decades a few courageous drug company senior executives have even spoken about how obscene it is, but no one can break the cycle in isolation...either the whole system changes or nothing changes.
Omg, who would research? Spends 1.5 times as much on their drug pushers. Genius.
I believe it costs a drug company 5 billion to bring a new medicine to the market from scratch. I'm not defending drug costs, I think these companies are screwing the US public, but the current system is not cheap to make a novel medicine. The FDA is very tight about regulations for new drugs - which is both very good and very bad in ways.
The question I have is this. With so many so-called altruistic billionaires in the DNC and working with the left who support government forced healthcare because of drug costs, why isn't Buffet, Soros, Bloomberg, Steyr, or any of the others not funding medical research to bring lower cost, more affordable competing drugs to the market? It's easy to whine about the people who actually do spend billions of dollars in research for cures, it's harder for any of them with actual money to actually put that money where their mouths are.
So if there is a straight up cure for diabetes that could save millions but the evil drug companies are keeping it from us so they can charge people a lifetime of medications, surely these people have enough money to pay for the research to develop those cures instead.
Most of that research money is tax payer grants.
@eoten: This is an ad-homenim, which is a bad way to make an argument. But here you go:
Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, and JPMorgan Chase have teamed up to develop lower cost healthcare
And there is a whole burgeoning industry of non-profit pharma companies
Which are getting much of their funding from billionaires
Even so, a handful of billionaires cannot compete with a whole industry full of them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/15/how-big-pharma-undermined-medical-innovation-for-financial-gain/#2198f8112f38
https://unherd.com/2018/11/big-pharma-kills-off-competition/
I think it will take more than Medicare for All to fix the underlying problems with our healthcare system and sort of question if it is the right place to start. I think investing money into creating more space in medical school, and also making that education a lot more affordable, is a better place to start. We have a shortage of doctors, but no shortage of people who want to and are capable of becoming doctors. Right now the supply of care doesn't meet demand. Also, patents for products partially funded by government and charities should work differently than other patents. They shouldn't last as long and they should be price controlled.
Medicare for All is better than the alternative the republicans propose of doing nothing at all, though.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment