Commentary: "Coronavirus shows again why 'Medicare for all' is a bad idea"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wesrock said:
Many people in other parts of the world look at the USA’s health care system and wonder why we’re operating like a third world country, they see our system as a "heck"scape they’d be horrified to live under.
Click to expand...
No doubt many people in other parts of the world see the US as a system where only the rich and privileged get access to top quality healthcare. US healthcare is top notch if you can afford it.

If not, then too bad.

It wasn’t too bad when employment was more secure back in the day but in today’s lay-off happy economy more and more people would find themselves without access to affordable healthcare. This is especially true for the working poor whose employers do not offer healthcare.
 
Individual responsibility and self-governance should not exclude our sense of community.

Charity towards others is a mark of the Christian.

So if you are against government provided healthcare, what or who should step in for those who cannot afford healthcare?
 
I’m out. I’m NOT getting into a whole other conversation about what governments should do and what they shouldn’t. I’m OUUUUT. Conversation muted. Regret getting involved…
 
Last edited:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the numbers of those infected with the virus is a lot higher than reported.

A lot more people are walking around infected but are too poor to visit a clinic.
 
Yet, here we are, and government, from Trump to individual mayors are intent on taking over and exerting control. So I do see a little bit of hypocrisy.
 
I haven’t read all 70+ replies to the thread, but did anyone here read the article? The reasoning is weak and borderline silly.
“One glance at how this virus has affected the rest of the world, however, quickly dispels this idea. Italy, which has a single-payer healthcare system, has seen its hospitals overwhelmed.”
Click to expand...
Of course single-payer health care doesn’t stop a pandemic! Germs don’t ask how people will be financially covered before they invade a body. In fact, the feds and CDC are under tremendous criticism for how the pandemic has been handled in the U.S., and unless you’re sleeping under a rock, you know that we don’t have a single-payer system.
In Britain, ventilators are in vastly short supply. Intensive care beds have already been filled, and doctors are beginning to tire, one physician told the New York Times . The British socialized healthcare system, which American socialists often tout as a base model, has been incapable of handling this outbreak, even though the United Kingdom has been dealing with far fewer cases than other parts of the world.
Click to expand...
Again, this is irrelevant. Pandemics can strike and overcrowd hospitals regardless of the health care coverage in place. Anecdotally, I know an ER nurse here in the U.S. who is overwhelmed with patients checking in. Coronavirus? Nope. Panic over coronavirus? Check.

If you’ve got a beef against single-payer health care, by all means make your case. But Americans need to use some logic and evidence in the process.
 
Also absurd:
The greatest amount of relief, however, has not come from the federal government but from the private sector. At least two vaccines have been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval, and several private health companies, such as the Michigan-based NeuMoDx, have rolled out technology that can be adapted and used to test for the coronavirus. All of this happened within a matter of weeks.
Click to expand...
Um, pharmaceutical products are also developed within the private sector in single-payer countries. Has anyone here heard of LaRoche? Sanofi Pasteur? These are private corporations.
 
I’m not an expert and I certainly don’t think Canada is ideal but are you saying basically every other country in the world with universal health care is unable to “ramp up” in this crisis? How come Germany is so good at this right now? Take a look at their numbers. Whatever they’re doing, that system works.
 
I appreciate the problems; universal healthcare is sometimes very “basic”; but there is still private health insurance for extended coverage. Health Canada also does not have universal pharmacare.
 
Last edited:
Taiwan and Japan were also able to cope with crisis and they have universal healthcare.
 
blackforest said:
Also absurd:
The greatest amount of relief, however, has not come from the federal government but from the private sector. At least two vaccines have been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval, and several private health companies, such as the Michigan-based NeuMoDx, have rolled out technology that can be adapted and used to test for the coronavirus. All of this happened within a matter of weeks.
Click to expand...
These are “private companies” with markets that are global. That means their capacity to do research and development isn’t limited by any particular country’s health system or controls. There is still the possibility to fund novel research and development because of the global market, especially the open US market which is large. If every country moved to heavily regulating prices and availability, those large companies would have far less incentive to spend great amounts on R&D.

Looking solely at pharmaceuticals here are the relative market sizes…

Biggest Global Pharmaceutical Markets Markets​

US $339,694 million USD | Pop = 327,096,265 | $1038 / person
Japan $94,025 million USD | Pop = 127,202,192 | $739 / person
China $86,774 million USD | Pop = 1,427,647,786 | $60 / person
Germany $45,828 million USD | Pop = 83,124,418 | $551 / person
France $37,156 million USD | Pop = 64,990,511 | $571 / person
Brazil $30,670 million USD | Pop = 209,469,323 | $146 / person
Italy $27,930 million USD | Pop = 60,627,291 | $460 / person
UK $24,513 million USD | Pop = 67,141,684 | $365 / person
Canada $21,353 million USD | Pop = 37,074,562 | $ 575 / person
Spain $20,741 million USD | Pop = 46,692,858 | $444 / person

So, the US market is about equal to the next eight countries combined. That makes for a lucrative market for companies like Roche or Sanofi that the US provides. If US spending on pharmaceuticals would be reduced to the amounts spent by countries with universal health care (average = ~$400 / person or ~$494 counting only EU and Canada), the US market would be more than cut in half.

How would those pharmaceutical companies manage with a reduction in the world market pharmaceuticals by over $500 000 million?

Most of the countries with universal health care deal primarily with generic drugs, where those are available. How would companies fund R&D on new drugs if countries are limiting drug prices to the prices of generics?

There is a lot more to consider than you might suppose.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
Taiwan and Japan were also able to cope with crisis and they have universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
Japan doesn’t exactly have universal health care. The government pays for 70% of the basic health needs, but patients pay 30%. It also requires private health insurance to be paid by each person to cover costs beyond basic care.

It appears that Taiwan also relies on individual premiums to cover costs which are generally controlled by the NHI. However, the actual revenue (name removed by moderator)uts into the system is not taxation. Premiums (or patient costs) are subsidized by the NHI but the patient pays to the degree they can afford.
The revenue for the NHI program comes from several sources: employees, employers and government, both national and local. There are special programs for different degrees of governmental premium subsidies for low income populations and disadvantaged populations. The insured are classified into six main categories and 15 subcategories based on their job and income. The percentage of the premium paid by the insured for each category varies from 0% for low income citizens to 100% for the self employed.The percentage of the revenue coming from government and the insured/employers was 23.2% and 76.8% in 2008, respectively.
An overview of the healthcare system in Taiwan
Click to expand...
Overall, the state pays 23.2% of the cost, and the individuals 76.8%.
 
I agree. Government run health is a sham. It is unsustainable, financially. It also reduces quality of care. I don’t want it.
 
They don’t want their taxes to increase and they don’t like the idea of supporting someone else through their “hard earned cash”
 
marybobo said:
Explain how it’s “free”.
Click to expand...
Like using most roads are free. Like your local fire brigade is free. Like the protection you get via the police force is free. Like the security afforded by your servicemen and women is free. Like public schools are free.

But maybe you’d prefer not to pay taxes and pay for someone to come and put the fire out. And pay for a private security company to protect your house. And pay tolls on all roads. And only get the education that you could afford.

I’m cool with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top