Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

rodeo

democratic primary candidates thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TheBlue said:

It is a non starter and virtually political suicide for conservatives in canada to try to cut or repeal their national healthcare. Same goes with Britain's NHS. When you make programs universal they have a protection against changes in the white house. 

 

Even though you are totally concern trolling here  

From my understanding Canada's healthcare isn't nationalized. And I know Britain's isn't. So I don't think you can compare these to a Bernie M4A system where private health insurance is banned and literally everything except things like cosmetic surgery is controlled by the government.

I could be wrong. Concern trolling? Is that the new meme after sealioning?

Edited by Marquis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, Marquis said:

From my understanding Canada's healthcare isn't nationalized. And I know Britain's isn't. So I don't think you can compare these a Bernie M4A system where private health insurance is banned and literally everything except things like cosmetic surgery is controlled by the government.

I could be wrong. Concern trolling? Is that the new meme after sealioning?

Canada health care is is funded by the government and is universal which is the point. private insurance under M4A isnt banned its just virtually useless.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheBlue said:

Canada health care is is funded by the government and is universal which is the point. private insurance under M4A isnt banned its just virtually useless.

Bernie's M4A bans private health insurance though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Marquis said:

Bernie's M4A bans private health insurance though

the term ban is a right wing frame. M4A gives more coverage at a lower cost than private insurance does now. supplemental insurance would still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheBlue said:

the term ban is a right wing frame. M4A gives more coverage at a lower cost than private insurance does now. supplemental insurance would still exist.

Well you said it wouldn't be banned but virtually useless. That's not what m4a proposes. The point of Bernie's m4a is that it can't work unless there are no private insurers in order to have the necessary risk pool. So it has to ban private insurers. That's not a partisan frame that's what it is or it won't work and Bernie says so. And his supplemental insurance is only for cosmetics. Not healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paa Langfart said:

Most working Americans get their healthcare paid for by their employer and they don't want to throw it away on a crapshoot system divised by DC bureaucrats.  That is a fact backed up by numerous polls.

Employer dependent medical insurance ties employees to their employers. Private for profit insurance is costly for startups, small businesses and the self employed. 

Medicare for All allows workers to change jobs without fear of having gaps in insurance coverage.  Lose your job, lose your employer's insurance.  Again, no worries with the M4A system.  M4A has no co-pay or chance of being cancelled due to long term illness either.

Medicare is the most cost effective means of delivering healthcare coverage in the nation and has been for over 50 years.

Medicare covers elderly and disabled Americans, demographics that typically require some of the most costly medical care.

Medicare isn't a "crapshoot" it has a long history of success in this nation of delivering healthcare for less cost.

Bottom line:  Only one industrialized nation doesn't have some version of universal single payer healthcare and that is the USA. 

Suggesting the USA is incapable of doing what all these other nations have been doing for generations is insulting.  The USA currently spends more per capita than any other nation on earth for healthcare while achieving the 37th best outcomes.

The current system is broken and inordinately expensive, creating a financial drain on families, businesses and our nation's economy while simultaneously failing to provide coverage for tens of millions of Americans. 

It is long past time to address this elephant in the room.

Quote
  • 55% of voters back a Medicare for All system that diminishes the role of private insurers if they retain access to their preferred providers.

  • Independents are 14 points more likely to back the system when told losing their private plan would not mean losing their doctor (42% to 56%).

  • Previous Morning Consult polling has also indicated Americans who are against Medicare for All on the grounds that it would reduce the role of insurance companies may be inadvertently conflating their payers and providers. Among adults who said they opposed the system, 62 percent said they are more likely to support the plan if they could keep their doctors and hospitals.

 

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marquis said:

Well you said it wouldn't be banned but virtually useless. That's not what m4a proposes. The point of Bernie's m4a is that it can't work unless there are no private insurers in order to have the necessary risk pool. So it has to ban private insurers. That's not a partisan frame that's what it is or it won't work and Bernie says so. And his supplemental insurance is only for cosmetics. Not healthcare.

everyone gets automatically enrolled in M4A after phase in. Its universal. Same way public schools work. Everyone pays for public schools even if you send your kids private. There would need be a niche market for uber wealth to have private insurance

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheBlue said:

everyone gets automatically enrolled in M4A after phase in. Its universal. Same way public schools work. Everyone pays for public schools even if you send your kids private. There would need be a niche market for uber wealth to have private insurance

 

Its a canned response that both the democrats and republicans use to bash it.  We got to keep calling them out on it

 

--

But here's the thing: Sanders' Medicare-for-all bill doesn't ban private health insurance. What it does ban is any private health coverage that duplicates the coverage offered by the government. For example, if Sanders Medicare-for-all system covered hospital stays but not dental work, then private insurers would still be free to offer plans that cover dental needs. In fact, Medicare already bans any private insurers from offering the same coverage it offers. Canada's single-payer system does this too.

Why ban duplicative coverage? Because, while the government covers everyone (That's the point!), private insurers can limit their customer pool by charging high premiums. Which could also allow them to reimburse health-care providers at a higher rate than the government. If your doctor accepts both your government coverage and another patient's private coverage, they might privilege the other patient or move them to the front of the line because their coverage gives a more generous reimbursement. It's basically a question of how high a priority you put on fairness in your health-care system. And different countries with single-payer systems have decided this issue differently.

The point is, there's a perfectly logical reason for the ban, and it's hardly unusual. More to the point, the policy still allows for supplemental private coverage — plans that cover the things the government plan doesn't.

This is also where the issue gets a little sticky.

Sanders' plan may allow private insurers to cover things the government doesn't, but under Sanders' plan, the government would also cover a ton. "It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, lab services, maternity care, and prescription drugs as well as vision and dental benefits," Sarah Kliff pointed out at Vox. "The plan is significantly more generous than the single-payer plans run by America's peer countries. The Canadian health-care system, for example, does not cover vision or dental care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, or home health services."

In other words, while Sanders' plan doesn’t ban supplementary coverage from private insurers, it does offer such generous coverage by the government that there's not much room left for private coverage to fill any gaps. This is the logic upon which both conservative critics — and supposedly nonpartisan mainstream reporters and pundits — hang the logic that Sanders' plan would "ban" private coverage. It's a dramatic "gotcha" question, and last week wasn't the first time presidential candidates like Harris have been tripped up by it.

But it's also fundamentally obscurantist, because it confuses two distinct policy questions: Should the government ban duplicative coverage? And, how generous should the government's own coverage offering be? Answers might vary, but those are the real points of contention in the health-care debate.

Still, even if "Would you ban private insurance?" is a dumb question, politicians also have an obligation to not fall into the trap. There can be a tendency among left-wing politicians and activists to embrace the silly caricatures foisted on them by these sorts of "gotcha" questions: Instead of picking apart the question itself, just raise your hand in the affirmative to show how uncompromising you are. That seems to be what Sanders, Warren, Harris, and de Blasio were going for last week. And as understandable as their instinct was, it still wasn't wise to take the bait.

  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What all the m4a people either do not realize or just fail to tell you is that m4a is not going to be free coverage.  Just like medicare isn't free  - disabled folks and seniors pay fairly hefty premiums for just the basic coverage - it is taken directly out of your social security payout each month, and that is on top of that 2% of their paychecks they paid into it all of their working lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

What all the m4a people either do not realize or just fail to tell you is that m4a is not going to be free coverage.  Just like medicare isn't free  - disabled folks and seniors pay fairly hefty premiums for just the basic coverage - it is taken directly out of your social security payout each month, and that is on top of that 2% of their paychecks they paid into it all of their working lives.

And medicare has less administrative overhead, is highly rated and paid for via the american public.  M4A will greatly expand the pool with a generally healthier population as young people are pulled in. 

Yes please tax me, please let me pay for it.  It will be less then I am paying now.

 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paa Langfart said:

What all the m4a people either do not realize or just fail to tell you is that m4a is not going to be free coverage.  Just like medicare isn't free  - disabled folks and seniors pay fairly hefty premiums for just the basic coverage - it is taken directly out of your social security payout each month, and that is on top of that 2% of their paychecks they paid into it all of their working lives.

If you were actually concerned about the cost of healthcare insurance you'd be in favor of M4A.

But you aren't, you spend your time here trying to prop up a failed and unsustainable health insurance system that is becoming increasingly unaffordable and incapable of meeting the needs of millions of Americans.

Meanwhile... the rest of the civilized world MYSTERIOUSLY provides healthcare to ALL their citizens for LESS money and with BETTER outcomes.

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GOOGLE JIM BOB COOTER said:

agreed

hey, guess what. 

I don't disagree.  That's one for Bern-dawg

  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

A few facts:

  • Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance (which covers 150 million Americans) have increased $13,375 in 2009 to $20,576 in 2019. For workers, their share went from $3,515 to $6,015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
  • The percentage of workers enrolled in a health plan with a deductible of $2,000 or more rose from just 7 percent in 2009 to 28 percent in 2019, the KFF says.
  • To put it more bluntly, the percentage of people who do have health insurance but are considered underinsured — meaning their insurance does not adequately protect them from the financial strain of a serious medical event — nearly tripled from 10 percent in 2003 to 28 percent in 2018, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

Those trendlines explain why Americans continue to name health care costs as one of their top policy concerns, even with 90 percent of people covered by some kind of insurance. And they surely help explain why the political energy for another round of health care reform remains so intense less than 10 years after the Affordable Care Act became law.

These problems are only getting worse. The uninsured rate has ticked up again, after falling for most of the last decade, since the Trump administration took over. They have willfully undermined the viability of the ACA’s insurance markets and permitted work requirements for Medicaid, causing thousands of people to lose their insurance without any meaningful effect on employment.

But none of this — the very reasons we are talking about Medicare-for-all or Medicare-for-all-who-want-it — would be evident to a viewer who hears one of the 2020 candidates asked for the umpteenth time about middle-class tax hikes. Nobody is explaining to them, in setting up the question, the cost of the system as it exists today.

It has been left to the Medicare-for-all supporters to try to steer the conversation to the broader discussion of costs, but then they are assailed by moderators and moderates alike for being evasive.

...nobody is asking how Biden or Buttigieg would pay for their plan over the longer term, if it does grow into a program that covers almost as many people as the Bernie Sanders’s version of Medicare-for-all.

That brings us to the bigger problem: Debate moderators have framed the question in such a way — would you raise taxes on the middle class? — that drains it of all relevant context, from the high costs of the existing system to the current trendlines we’re seeing under President Trump.

Warren and Sanders have answered that question by emphasizing that new federal taxes will be replacing private insurance premiums for employers and families and that out-of-pocket costs will be nearly eliminated. It’s hard to say whether they are right that middle-class families will pay less overall for health care without a detailed financing plan, but this RAND study of a proposed single-payer plan in New York state that’s very similar to Medicare-for-all would give the candidates a case.

The study shows an almost one-to-one trade of private premiums for new taxes, with point-of-care costs cut by more than half. Overall health care costs shrink slightly, with administrative costs way down and more money spent directly on medical services.

This is the pitch Warren and Sanders are making. But they aren’t making it against an empty slate. That’s the context debate moderators miss with their narrow focus on middle-class taxes.

America needs an informed conversation about health care costs and how we can lower them so nobody in this country goes bankrupt because of a medical event. This myopic fixation on middle-class taxes is constraining our ability to have it.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/21/20925794/voxcare-medicare-for-all-warren-buttigieg-biden-public-option

 

 

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...