2 2
turtlespeed

DNC Hopefuls

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, airdvr said:

Among the most expensive elements of the Sanders plan are:
His single-payer health care plan, which would replace all private health insurance with a government-run program.

I have lived in 3 different countries that have absolutely no problem affording this -- this is simply not a valid argument. In every single case it is MUCH cheaper for individuals to afford healthcare, even if you include increases in taxes.

I do not understand how this argument can still be made, unless you simply ignore data from pretty much every country that has universal healthcare.

Yes: Of course, it increases the federal budget, if you now include healthcare in the federal budget and before it wasn't -- but that has nothing to do with how much individuals pay: If you pay $800/month on insurance now, with a $8000 deductible, you pay between $9600 and $ 17600 per year on healthcare before you get ANY services from your insurance company. If instead, you pay $5000 more in taxes, you come out ahead by $4600 to $12,600...and that doesn't even consider the improvement in accessibility of healthcare, because you can go to ANY doctor or specialist you want, because there simply is no such thing as "out of network."

How is that hard to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I have lived in 3 different countries that have absolutely no problem affording this. . .

. . .How is that hard to understand?

What 3 different countries are you referring to?

Is the problem perhaps in building an infrastructure to accommodate all 300+ million people as equally, quickly, and efficiently across a span of nearly 4 million square miles? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What 3 different countries are you referring to?

Is the problem perhaps in building an infrastructure to accommodate all 300+ million people as equally, quickly, and efficiently across a span of nearly 4 million square miles? 

Austria, Germany, France. Admittedly I only personally participated in the health system in Austria, as I did not live long enough in the other countries to need it, but family members live there and I could watch how the system worked for them. 

While I am not certain exactly why a larger area would pose particular challenges that a smaller area would not (particularly challenges that are unique to single-payer healthcare and would not apply to the current system) I am certain that the US will have some unique challenges over other countries, not the least the challenge of changing from one system to a completely different one. There is much that could be argued about HOW to get there...but the argument that a single-payer universal healthcare system would cost (the individual) more than the current system, just doesn't seem to hold any water. It ignores the fact that the opposite is true in pretty much every place that has universal healthcare.

By the way: When you say "building an infrastructure", what are you referring to? Do you mean hospitals, etc.? 
There really seems to be some misunderstanding in the US, that universal healthcare means that the government provides the actual healthcare, or that there will be government hospitals built (maybe analogous to the VA system?), etc. That is not the case. Healthcare is provided by the same people and institutions that provide it now. The infrastructure exists now. If it is insufficient, it is so now, and that would have nothing to do with universal healthcare. None of the countries I lived in, actually had the healthcare provided by government institutions. The government simply handles the collection of insurance payments (via taxes) and uses its bargaining power to ensure fair prices. The only infrastructure that is needed is the ability to collect the payments, and that infrastructure already exists (in the form of the IRS) Or do you mean something else by that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 minutes ago, mbohu said:

When you say "building an infrastructure", what are you referring to? Do you mean hospitals, etc.? 

Being able to provide EVERYONE as quickly, efficiently and equally.  That is the problem no matter which way you decide to look at it.  Just take some time to think about what that actually means.

7 minutes ago, mbohu said:

If it is insufficient, it is so now

I agree.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


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

Being able to provide EVERYONE as quickly, efficiently and equally.  That is the problem no matter what way you look at it.  Just take some time to think about what that actually means.

I agree.

But again, how is this different from now? How is it related to universal healthcare?

Let's say, I live in a rural area that does not have a lot of hospitals and doctors available (I think that's what you mean, right?) and I have to pay a private insurance company a lot of money (from what I know it would be MORE than in densely populated areas, because there is also no competition of different available insurers) and then I can't get fast enough to a hospital--HOW is that any better than if I am part of the universal healthcare system and pay slightly less (through taxes) and STILL can't get to a hospital near me?

This seems to be a completely different issue. If it is an issue that sparsely populated areas don't have enough medical services available, then yes: we should think about solutions about that issue too, but it has nothing to do with universal healthcare. In either situation I have the same problem.

 

Or do you mean, that right now, if I live in such an area, I have the option of simply saying: "screw it! I won't get to a hospital in time anyway, so I may as well not get insurance at all. I'll die a lonely painful death, but at least I don't have to pay a monthly premium?" That is the only "advantage" I can think of in that regard, but that really isn't much of one, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

 

.

Edited by Coreeece
Excuse me, some of my other devices automatically login to my other coreeece "sockpuppets" if that's what you can even call them. . .and then I post from them. Yes, I suppose it should be embarassing, but not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coreeece said:

30 million more people, plus equal treatment for ALL, regardless of your shitty insurance.

 

I seem to be dense today: I still don't get it. How do we have equal treatment for ALL now?

Universal healthcare also does not promise equal treatment for all. It does not change ANYTHING whatsoever about the medical infrastructure. It just guarantees that everyone CAN get treatment without regard to financial issues or pre-existing conditions, etc. But it does not move doctors nearer to you. It does not change anything about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coreeece said:

Fine, loan them the money for schooling and then take away the jobs.  Nice!

I didn't take away anyone's job.  Why should I have to payoff someone's student loans?  What about the poor fucks who did the right thing and paid off their loans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 minutes ago, airdvr said:
6 minutes ago, Coreeece said:

Fine, loan them the money for schooling and then take away the jobs.  Nice!

I didn't take away anyone's job.  Why should I have to payoff someone's student loans? 

Because 911 changed everything and gen X got fucked.  That's why.

 

3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

What about the poor fucks who did the right thing and paid off their loans?

Ya, poor fucks.  Some weren't that lucky.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mbohu said:

I have lived in 3 different countries that have absolutely no problem affording this -- this is simply not a valid argument. In every single case it is MUCH cheaper for individuals to afford healthcare, even if you include increases in taxes.

I do not understand how this argument can still be made, unless you simply ignore data from pretty much every country that has universal healthcare.

Yes: Of course, it increases the federal budget, if you now include healthcare in the federal budget and before it wasn't -- but that has nothing to do with how much individuals pay: If you pay $800/month on insurance now, with a $8000 deductible, you pay between $9600 and $ 17600 per year on healthcare before you get ANY services from your insurance company. If instead, you pay $5000 more in taxes, you come out ahead by $4600 to $12,600...and that doesn't even consider the improvement in accessibility of healthcare, because you can go to ANY doctor or specialist you want, because there simply is no such thing as "out of network."

How is that hard to understand?

It's hard to understand only if you are predisposed not to understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, kallend said:

It's hard to understand only if you are predisposed not to understand it.

You're right.  Everyone understands there will be winners and losers.  They should also understand that the losers will complain, regardless of how rich or poor they are. . .nothing wrong with that.  Everyone deserves to be heard.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the losers in a nationalized health payment system?

the rich can still hire private doctors, go elsewhere, and buy additional levels of insurance. 

The poor can now afford to go to doctors. 

The middle class (and the very large proportion of Americans who call themselves middle class but who are on the outside reaches of it high and low) will have access to medical care without worrying that it will break their bank. 

Some people will suffer delays; some of them will be people who don’t now, but others, who do suffer delays now, no longer will. There will be less of the “we changed our plan and now you need new doctors and to get everything approved all over again” that happens now. 

If you currently like your health care and are comfortable that your plan will NEVER change, then there might be changes. I wouldn’t understand that, my health plans (until I started on Medicare this year) have always been subject to change. I’m just healthy, so it hasn’t impacted me. But I’ve had co workers who struggled with what was considered to be excellent insurance. 

Wendy P.  

Share this post


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

Being able to provide EVERYONE as quickly, efficiently and equally.  That is the problem no matter which way you decide to look at it.  Just take some time to think about what that actually means.

This is the real problem. White middle class and higher Americans simply can not stomach the idea of sharing their expensive beautiful hospitals with hoards of poor lower class trashy whites, brown and black people, and of course immigrants from shithole countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I wouldn’t understand that, my health plans (until I started on Medicare this year) have always been subject to change.

Now that I'm on Medicare with supplements I pay a quarter of what I paid before and have fantastic access to any doctor or specialist. By the last year of private insurance I was over $1000 per month for the best plan. I couldn't even see a specialist who had already done 5 surgeries on me without a referral from another Doctor I'd never before seen and then was told I needed to wait one month for an appointment with him. It was just ridiculous. The first day of the month of my birthday came before that and I got right in with Medicare. The fix was to be a series of knee injections which he would need to get approved. Then he asked if I had Medicare yet and bingo he was back with the cart in 5 minutes and the rest were all scheduled. A quick check found that all of the doc's I'd seen for years all accepted medicare with the single exception being the 3T Tesla MRI Facility that I already had a 50% co-pay to visit. I'm very much liking this public health care.

Share this post


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

And it isn't just money. I was reading a story about a woman who's husband and child were involved in a car crash. Her child eventually succumbed to the injuries, while her husband slowly recovered.

The logistical nightmare she went through, trying to find doctors who would care for her family, while accepting the appropriate insurance was incredible. All while dealing with the loss of a child. What is the purpose of an advanced society when you are entirely unable to take care of people in their moments of need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

And a national health care plan is really nothing more than an extension of Medicare.

Why is that so hard to conceive?

Jerry Baumchen

We see "Sometimes a Great Notion", they see "Never Give an Inch."

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.

2 2