S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Healthcare for all or sweating the cost and providing benefits to the rich? A no brainer in my book.
Do Democrats Know How Radical Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare For All' Plan Is?
- Status
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I have never understood why so many Americans oppose socialised medicine but support socialised defence, police, Emergency Management, National Park provision, roading and education.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Support for single payer is growing. 53% of Americans are in favor. Led by Democrats and independents. Only Republicans oppose and even in their case, 28% of Republicans support.
www.kff.org
Data Note: Modestly Strong but Malleable Support for Single-Payer Health Care | KFF
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking poll finds that while there has been a modest increase in the public’s level of support for single-payer in recent years, a substantial share of the public remains opposed to such a plan, and opinions are quite malleable when presented with the types of...
www.kff.org
U
ucfengr
Guest
You seem to be grouping a lot of unrelated things together. I don’t see the connection between wanting the federal government to provide for national defense and wanting the federal government to make my doctor’s appointments.
L
LoyalViews
Guest
I beg you to come to the UK, Ireland, Canada, etc… and have a gander at the healthcare system. Waitlists, taxes, waitlists. Do you know that under socialized medicine it might often take up to four months for a surgery that might need to be done immediately. Consider when the premier (first minister) of Newfoundland needed heart surgery. Where did he go?
The United States. He’d sooner pay for it and have it done rather than endanger his life and wait however long he was told.
Socialized medicine is nuts. It has helped in only the smallest ways, and they’re almost completely monetary. When my life is in danger, I’m more concerned about getting the best care rather than the price. Besides, insurance is always there.
MCP, NHS, all these programmes: failure.
The United States. He’d sooner pay for it and have it done rather than endanger his life and wait however long he was told.
Socialized medicine is nuts. It has helped in only the smallest ways, and they’re almost completely monetary. When my life is in danger, I’m more concerned about getting the best care rather than the price. Besides, insurance is always there.
MCP, NHS, all these programmes: failure.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Hi Loyal!
I don’t know about the UK and Ireland, but Canada’s system is immensely popular with it’s citizenry. “Repeal” polls are typically laughed at…
From what I’ve read on the Canadian system, yes. Your knee replacement which “needs to be done immediately” might be scheduled a few months out. Similarly, the articles on the topic were pretty fast to point out that this does not apply to something acute like heart failure.
Yes, the wealthy will always have more options that the average Joe or Jane.
First world countries with socialized medicine beat the US pretty handily in per capita cost, infant mortality and life expectancy. So I’m not sure you’re objectively correct here.
Simply not true. When your life is in danger, you want the fastest care. Which is why competitive models break down for healthcare, particularly in emergency situations.
Fact of the matter is that most of the citizens of these countries agree they’re not perfect. But if you look at polls suggesting privatization, they overwhelmingly support the public program.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
I’m Canadian, and my wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and was under the knife within two weeks.
A
anon27816918
Guest
What do you have to pay to give up medicare? All you have to do is give up the welfare benefits. Nobody is morally entitled to receive the sweat of someone else’s brow.
Now if Medicare parts B and D are so awful, then why do people pay for them in the first place? If you can get better insurance for less in the market, then why buy the government insurance?
Now if Medicare parts B and D are so awful, then why do people pay for them in the first place? If you can get better insurance for less in the market, then why buy the government insurance?
N
niceatheist
Guest
Indeed. Perhaps your neighbors should decide that their money should no longer go towards your house being protected from fires or crime.
We live in a society, and that society functions because there are a mutual set of obligations and rights. The minute you start going down the road of “my money is mine”, you’ve essentially entered a world of sociopathic greed.
W
Wesrock
Guest
It would pay for your doctor’s appointments, not make them.
A
anon27816918
Guest
The difference between fire and crime and old age is that the first two are unpredictable risks. Old age is very predictable. People can plan and save for it. You know healthcare costs will be higher when you get older so the rational person can set aside money for it. There is no reason why the government needs to bail out irresponsibility.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The notion that you expect the average working-class American to set aside $300K-$400K in anticipation of their eventual diagnosis with cancer (if they live long enough) is cow-eyed ludicrous.
Only the young can be so naive…
A
anon27816918
Guest
Whose young? In addition, catastrophic policies were relatively cheap.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Pre-ACA, my mid-70-year-old parent’s premium was $1500 a month. If that’s cheap…
Which may prove you’re young. Older folks KNOW they’ll hit their deductible.
Last edited:
U
ucfengr
Guest
Social Security isn’t welfare.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
And pre ACA my husband and I paid $160 for my entire family with no deductible, free well visits, $20 co-pays and $5 prescriptions.
Post ACA with our employer sponsored plan we’re paying nearly $500, $40 copays on everything, a 2k deductible per family member and 20% of everything besides well-care, after our deductible.
ACA did NOT make things good for everyone. Pretending it did is very short-sighted…and doesn’t help to ease the burden that middle-class families are feeling. My story is not uncommon. And quite frankly, based on what other people are dealing with we’re lucky. The employer plan is bearing the bigger part of the cost of our plan…so our small business employer (less than 500 employees) is also squeezed.
My husband and I are nowhere NEAR wealthy. In fact, some models put us in the upper end of lower class. We’re the ones bearing the burden of “free” healthcare and it affects our quality of life deeply.
Post ACA with our employer sponsored plan we’re paying nearly $500, $40 copays on everything, a 2k deductible per family member and 20% of everything besides well-care, after our deductible.
ACA did NOT make things good for everyone. Pretending it did is very short-sighted…and doesn’t help to ease the burden that middle-class families are feeling. My story is not uncommon. And quite frankly, based on what other people are dealing with we’re lucky. The employer plan is bearing the bigger part of the cost of our plan…so our small business employer (less than 500 employees) is also squeezed.
My husband and I are nowhere NEAR wealthy. In fact, some models put us in the upper end of lower class. We’re the ones bearing the burden of “free” healthcare and it affects our quality of life deeply.
Last edited:
A
anon27816918
Guest
According to whom?
A
anon27816918
Guest
What was their deductible? If they would take responsibility for the first 10-20k per year, premiums get very affordable.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure! Relatively young family pooled with the like. Extremely low-risk, as a actuary would rate you.
Again, I totally believe it. You were pooled with everyone, then. Including those with extremely expensive illnesses that were previously denied insurance on that basis.
Oh mine went up too. In proportion very similar to you! I make no pretense that ACA was wonderful for everyone.
And whether you realize it or not, you are the very people who will be the most liberated from a single-payer system finally pulling that expense off the shoulders of you and your small employer.
We already spend more on healthcare, per capita, than virtually any other nation on the planet. There are better systems and all of them are a form of single-payer.
U
ucfengr
Guest
This is a very deceptive statistic. There isn’t a uniform method for measuring infant mortality. The US uses a much more liberal method of recording infant mortality than other countries. Life expectancy is tricky too. Americans of European or Asian descent have life expediencies that are very similar, if not superior to their European or Asian cousins. Americans of African descent actually have superior life expediencies to their African cousins. The differences are better explained by genetic and lifestyle differences than to quality of health care.
- Status