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

[StudentMI]

Very well said.

My basic question is whether crony capitalism or crony socialism would be the worst option.

If I had to choose which to live under, it would be the former. At least opportunities for some kind of basic subsistence and charity would be possible.

Edited to add: forgot to write ‘which to live under.’ Got distracted by the TV.

 

[esieffe]

Pray that the pandemic would not reach the US as the level of Italy,

We are, and yes the French have a good healthcare system. I am afraid it will be awful here. I think though, Trump’s idea to activate the military’s MASH system is brilliant, but it too will be overrun I’m afraid. About ten feet from where I am typing this lies my brother, who is partially disabled, and is running a low fever. I pray it isn’t “Captain Tripps” [What it was called in Stephen King’s The Stand.]

On another web page there is a headline that 40 million people in California are going on lock down. Very scary times. The college kids are still in Florida [and Paris?] partying, and even the Governor is scolding them. I hope they go home soon, as the lesson of Italy, is that even younger people, if exposed to enough viral load can get pretty sick.

Yes we are praying, but not just for us, for everyone and you as well. Thanks for letting us know how things are going there. Time to pull together.
Pax

 

[JSRG]

Because the election system is rigged agianst 3rd party candidates. If a third-party candidate would emerge they would end up splitting one of the other two parties that closely aligns to the third party and spoil the other party’s chances of getting elected .Thus ensuring the opposing party victory.

It is true that our voting system (everyone votes for one candidate and whoever gets the most votes wins) heavily favors a two-party system for this reason. Still, heavily favors is different than requires. There are some countries with this form of voting that have more than two viable political parties.

That said, it is true that parties that are similar to one of the main two parties have little hope for the reasons you chose of splitting the vote. To be successful, a party needs to be a mixture of the two major parties–which is yet another reason why I remain convinced the American Solidarity Party has the highest chance of doing so, the fact their platform draws from both Democratic and Republican ideas, preventing the kind of vote splitting that something like the Green Party has.

For example:
During the 2016 election the Libertarian party would be considered a third party and the spoiler party towards the Republicans. Because both parties are ideologically similar they end up stealing votes from one another splitting the voter base. In some people’s Ideal World, a split between the libertarian party and the Republican Party would have ensured someone like Hillary Clinton the presidency.

This, however, is fallacious. It is true that the Libertarian Party has some ideas, particularly economic ones, that would be attractive to a Republican. On the other hand, look at these excerpts from their platform:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

and

Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

These are taken verbatim from the Libertarian Party’s platform. These are hardly “ideologically similar” to the Republican Party–in fact, they go in the opposite direction and are more in line with Democratic positions. So the claim that Gary Johnson could be a spoiler for Donald Trump doesn’t make that much sense. The small amount of hard data we have on the subject, from my understanding, indicates that he either took votes about equally from Trump and Hillary or he actually hurt Hillary slightly more than he hurt Trump (though not enough to actually change the election result).

 

[JSRG]

(cont.)

But the point is, whichever candidate he took more votes from, it doesn’t seem to have been disproportionately either Hillary or Trump. Thus the Libertarian Party does what I described earlier: It manages to be a real mix of positions from both Democratic and Republican parties, thereby preventing the kind of vote splitting you are talking about. The main problem the Libertarian Party has, in my mind, is the fact that while they do a great job avoiding vote splitting, the wall they run into is the fact their overall platform doesn’t have much appeal to many people, making it harder for them to attract support. (the ASP’s platform, in my view, has much more mass appeal, giving it more opportunity to be an actual contender)

Smart voters know this. Hence why any third-party candidate never really gets any traction here in America. The only way a proper third party can ever hold any sort of power would require nothing short of complete election reform. The self-interest of Congress would never allow it.

Actually, one state (Maine) has enacted Ranked Choice Voting–a perfect solution to the problem of vote splitting–and two more (Massachusetts and Alaska) are probably going to have referendums on the subject this year. Various cities even outside of those states have enabled it, and some party primaries are using it. I think we’ll see an increased push for it over the next years and more implementation by individual states and, hopefully, eventually enough support for it to be put in place across the whole country. RCV isn’t even necessarily a full-on loss for the Democrats and Republicans, because it at least means they don’t have to worry about spoiler candidates.

But even if that isn’t implemented, for the aforementioned reasons I think the ASP is uniquely positioned to take on the two-party system. It has a platform that can draw in supporters of both parties and, unlike the Libertarian Party, is a platform that seems to have a large amount of support. It is relatively small right now (though it is growing!) but I feel that comes mostly from the fact it’s pretty new rather than anything else.

 

[BT3241]

There is no free health care in Canada unless you are unemployed. You could look at it as we pay our heath care premiums in our Taxes as a large group. Anyone who says its free does not know what they are talking about.
The good points - we will never be bankrupted by it or be turned away for poor health.
I had both knees replaced never paid a dime and both were done 6 months apart no wait except for it does take 9 months to get to the first surgery but it all went by really fast - to fast for me.
My knees are back to normal and it didn’t cost me anything but my time. Payed for in my Taxes and work insurance payed my wages. No complaints here. Not the slightest financial burden on me at all.

 

[Sarcelle]

The shut down of businesses in many states due to the Coronavirus is adding to the financial insecurity.

I’m sure a lot of people have been laid off due to the slowdown and these people would have lost their medical insurance.

So you add a virus and lots more people with no insurance and you have a recipe for a disaster.

 

[blackforest]

It doesn’t take professional “healthcare” to

I’m inclined to agree with you on all of your examples. Preventive or even occasional health care access can get to the root of all of these issues. Somebody who makes wise eating choices may be overweight due to a thyroid disorder. Somebody who’s losing weight may have an underlying serious or even cancerous condition. Somebody who is addicted to drugs or alcohol may be trying to self-medicate for an undiagnosed physical or psychiatric condition. Somebody taking participating in super risky activities without taking precautions may have undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder.

Choice and personal responsibility make up a big part of our health picture. But I think we can both agree that there’s often more to it.

 

[blackforest]

If a third-party candidate would emerge they would end up splitting one of the other two parties that closely aligns to the third party and spoil the other party’s chances of getting elected .Thus ensuring the opposing party victory.

The word “spoil” reflects a level of blame-shifting in our culture, but I don’t think you’re doing it deliberately. A candidate from a major party must EARN my vote. They don’t get to coast along lazily saying, “Well, you don’t want the other person, do you?”

If I vote third-party, and Major Party Candidate X loses because of it, it’s on them. They should have tried harder to earn my vote . . . and thousands if not millions of others.

 

[Feanor2]

So you are saying that doctors in the US need to make MORE money?? Ridiculous. I think they are doing just fine.

Ever go to the doctor’s office and see the nicest car in the lot? You can bet who owns that one.

 

[StudentMI]

She didn’t say that.

 

[Neithan]

Nine months is a long time to wait though. How long would that wait be in the U.S.?

Universal healthcare does not have to be a single-payer model. Multi-payer seems to work better.

 

[StudentMI]

Sweden seems to have an interesting model. It sounds similar to Canada with region by region care as opposed to centrally directed. More decentralized it sounds like.

 

[jeannetherese]

So you are saying that doctors in the US need to make MORE money??

No, I was not saying that. If you read over more of the conversation, you will see that the context involved discussion of wait times in countries with socialized medicine. In some countirres, one might have to wait a year to see an eye doctor-in short, there are not enough eye doctors to meet demand, One way to increase the quantity of doctors, is to increase salaries so that the profession might e seen as more desirable and draw additional students into the university training programs.
I suggested that, if eye doctors were allowed to set their own rates, (in these countries) we might see more people interested in becoming eye doctors.
The scarcity of eye doctors in the countries under discussion might be described as a form of health care rationing.

 

[HarryStotle]

Choice and personal responsibility make up a big part of our health picture. But I think we can both agree that there’s often more to it.

This is one of the issues with supposed “free health care.” There are individuals, and in significant numbers, who will take risks and act with some degree of imprudence because, they assume, they will be taken care of.

To wit:

The college kids are still in Florida [and Paris?] partying, and even the Governor is scolding them.

You might say, well we don’t currently have universal health care in the States, so my point is moot. These students don’t have “free coverage.”

However, most of these students who are wealthy enough to attend university and party in Florida are likely under someone’s private health coverage. To them it is “free.”

Some degree of personal responsibility ought to be written into the system.

Taiwan and Japan seem to get that.

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

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 t…

Perhaps alternatives to universal as opposed to completely private ought to be seriously considered.

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

Based upon the Diamond Princess numbers, about 90% of those infected won’t show symptoms. 10% will test positive but be asymptomatic and 10% will have symptoms of some degree, perhaps severe enough to isolate or visit a clinic.

Here in Canada clinics have initiated a “phone appointment” system where patients phone the clinic first then are given a recommendation based upon symptoms. Most testing is being done “drive through” in undisclosed locations where only those who have checked by phone into a clinic are given directions to testing facilities.

 

[StudentMI]

Perhaps alternatives to universal as opposed to completely private ought to be seriously considered.

Swedish healthcare became regionally run and funded by local state tax. Overconsumption had created long hospital lines depriving those with urgent needs of immediate attention. These kinds of inefficiencies of the universal programs caused Sweden to open to more private companies.

Socialism Didn’t Work In Sweden, And It Won’t Work In America

 

[Mi_Rose]

My husband had a ministroke in Canada. He saw the opthamologist at his office the same day.

 

[po18guy]

Way back in the 90s I think, pundit P.J. O’Rourke quipped:

“If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free…”

Regarding the demands for cheaper and better healthcare now; despite the whining about isn’t the US horrible and aren’t those other nations soooo much better, I don’t see the whiners packing up and moving there.

America seems addicted to cheap whine.

Go to a cancer research facility. Look at the doctors and researchers there. They come from all over the world. Why is that? The US, despite its high costs, is leading the advancement of health care and disease treatment. Those horrible pharmaceutical companies (one of which gave me half a million $ of free drug) are raking in windfall profits blah blah blah…

Our drugs are so expensive because US industry develops drugs that the rest of the world uses. Each drug company risks 2-5 BILLION dollars US to shepherd a single new drug from concept to availability. And the majority of the drugs in development ultimately fail to win FDA approval. Where does that cash come from?

While I don’t see the whiners packing up and going to these utopian nations with universal health care, I do hear endless demands that I (retired multi-cancer patient on Social Security disability) pay for their healthcare via socialized medicine.

Sorry if I sound callous, or even worse: insennnnnsitive.

As to the panacea of single payer, consider the plight of cancer patients in Canada:
https://www.lymphoma.ca/post/webinar-cancer-drug-access-canada
From the webinar:

"Drugs are an important part of cancer treatment, yet patients often have difficulty accessing coverage for the most effective medicines. The complexity of cancer drug coverage in Canada can overwhelm patients and families.

Navigators are healthcare professional found in most cancer clinics. They can help patients remove barriers to treatment, reduce out of pocket expenses and connect patients with program resources to help along the treatment journey."

 

[Balto1]

Yeah I don’t get the average American’s middle-class opposition to basic universal healthcare.

“Screw you got mine” is basically America’s mantra. Middle class people generally have good jobs and good insurance and don’t experience the barriers to access that poor people do; they can generally afford copays, have better prescription coverage, can often afford tests out of pocket, and they’re generally more healthy to begin with as they can afford better food, live in areas with cleaner air, and their jobs are typically less physically-damaging than poorer people. But that changes really quickly when you get seriously ill or injured or lose your job and insurance, and middle class people often change their tunes after actually dealing with our nightmare of a health care system.

The US resistance to universal healthcare blows my mind. But hey, whatever makes you happy. Each country runs the way they want to run.

If we could vote on it today the majority of Americans would support single payer.

That is why Italy has such a high death rate from CoVID-19. Anyone over 75 is simply not helped, but left to fend for themselves while the younger patients are triaged in terms of where the necessarily limited resources ought to be targetted.

If the outbreak in the United States reaches the levels it has in Italy we will absolutely be triaging patients and giving younger people access to our limited number of ventilators.

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.

The main reason wait times are so low in the U.S. is because poor people just can’t afford to get treatment. We live in a country where automastectomies aren’t unheard of. The reason you don’t have to wait for health care is because someone who can’t afford it is currently dying without it.

 

[Balto1]

How would companies fund R&D on new drugs if countries are limiting drug prices to the prices of generics?

The NIH/NSF funds most R&D. Almost all of the basic research that goes into developing drugs happens at universities. Private companies foot the bill for late-stage development and pricey clinical trials. R&D would continue to be funded by the federal government. If the pharmaceutical industry can’t hack it we should nationalize them and distribute the profits they’re making off public money to the public.

The brightest and best will leave the industry.

Good, people who want to help people will keep going to medical school and the people just in it to make money will go be vampires somewhere else.

If you are interested in broadening your horizons, you could do worse than checking out the Mercatus Center.

Love the Mercatus Center, they projected that Medicare for All will save the country $200 billion a year while providing health coverage to the tens of millions of people who currently have no or useless insurance.

If unemployment gets high enough, I think a lot more people (here in the US) will endorse single payer. Already so many people have much less financial security than retirees, and have such a burden to stay insured.

This will absolutely happen as millions of people lose their jobs and health insurance in the coming months. Goldman is projecting 2.25 million unemployment claims this week.

There is no free health care in Canada unless you are unemployed. You could look at it as we pay our heath care premiums in our Taxes as a large group. Anyone who says its free does not know what they are talking about.

When people say “free” in regards to American health care they mean all the deductibles and copayments and surprise bills that come even if you have health insurance. They know it will still be funded by taxes which they will contribute to, they’ll just no longer be hit by surprise $30,000 bill from doctor that is out of their insurance’s “network” or pay the average $4500 out of pocket for giving birth or any of a countless other things your insurance premium doesn’t actually insure you against.

Those horrible pharmaceutical companies (one of which gave me half a million $ of free drug) are raking in windfall profits blah blah blah…

The fact that they are so obscenely profitable is why they can afford to give away free drugs. You didn’t get $500k worth of free drug because the drug isn’t worth $500k.