Do Democrats Know How Radical Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare For All' Plan Is?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonteRCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just try to Google different combinations of search terms: “cash pay …”
 
If something has been done by every country except one, it is then by definition the NORM and not RADICAL.
 
They are sowing seeds, Monte. Perhaps the time has not come to full fruition but Medicare is a known quantity, unlike the ACA or anything the Republicans can muster up in the last minute.
 
The United States already does a lot of stuff that is different from everybody else.

Should the United States become a shadow of Europe?

Why???
 
medicare is nearly broke. competition is the best way to ensure product effectiveness and efficiency. when has the government ever run an effective and efficient program?

i believe the first thing a government will do when it is incapable of providing an efficient product is to reduce the cost of the product by diminishing the quality of the product. that is why the government is the last entity i want making my health care and medical insurance decisions.
 
eddietoo said:
medicare is nearly broke. competition is the best way to ensure product effectiveness and efficiency. when has the government ever run an effective and efficient program?
Click to expand...
Medicare has been “nearly broke” my entire adult life. I’m honestly not too worried after hearing about it for the past few decades… Call me calloused, but that particular boy has cried “wolf” a few too many times.

It reaches a critical funding point, congress allocates cash and then the problem goes away for awhile. Welcome to modern government, I suppose. 😀

And competition is a wonderful way to “ensure product effectiveness and efficiency” in a classic market setting-
which healthcare, as an industry, is not. It’s a natural oligopoly, even in larger cities. In smaller towns, it’s a natural monopoly. The immediate economy simply cannot support a wide array of competitors; particularly with something as expensive as nuclear medicine. Capital costs are just too high.

Natural monopolies and oligopolies are best left to the government, as a rule. Other fine examples besides healthcare are roads and utilities. But natural monopoly is not the only reason to socialize certain activities. National defense, for example, can follow a more classic market approach. But when the Romans funded their armies privately, civil wars tended to break out quite regularly (think Jeff Bezos’s legions attacking Bill Gates’ legions… or worse… combining forces and drafting a new government.) Turns out the state-solution was better there too.

And another fine point is that a single-payer system doesn’t destroy competition. You’re still free to pick your doctor. But as they’re paid the same for the same service, one doctor must innovate over the other in order to obtain your business. In a commodity market, this is the present reality today. (i.e. I want you to buy my soybeans before you buy farmer Tom’s soybeans).
i believe the first thing a government will do when it is incapable of providing an efficient product is to reduce the cost of the product by diminishing the quality of the product. that is why the government is the last entity i want making my health care and medical insurance decisions.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Let’s see if this is the reality for the scores of other nations that currently employ the system we’re thinking of switching to…
**looks around **
Nope. Not what we’re seeing… US presently outranked in infant mortality, life expectancy and WHO quality and access rating by at least a score of other nations, all using a single payer system.

And under those systems, the government doesn’t decide what care you get. Your doctor does.
What is your comparison point for the government making your healthcare decisions? The 1950s USSR? Serious question as I see this objection a lot. It just doesn’t seem to exist in the real world today…
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
You know a “Medicare for All” system of some sort is how pretty much every other nation on the planet where people don’t live on dirt floors administers their healthcare, right?
Click to expand...
I just want to see how they will pay for it and what exactly will be covered.

i have heard the fed would have to raise income taxes 15%. i have heard canadians pay about 50% in taxes. i have heard the fed will just print money: inflation be damn. i have heard it won’t cost anything due to government efficiency (va & usps come to mind). what is the story?

i know california and vermont couldn’t afford it in a limited market. it will be interesting.
 
Vonsalza said:
Poor Charlie Gerard had an aggressively terminal condition. ☹️ I don’t think many in America “get” that.
Click to expand...
from what i read the parents weren’t even told the extent of his condition. when they found out they decided to bring him home to pass but the government denied it.

will the government control it? we see how well the va is run. it is a government run single payer system. how many died a few years ago waiting for care?
 
niceatheist said:
I’m Canadian, and my wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and was under the knife within two weeks.
Click to expand...
no answer required but how old was she?

a community elderly snowbird needed emergency surgery for cancer. the canadian government told him to come home. he flew home and wasn’t scheduled for surgery for months. he retired from the government and called in some favors for immediate surgery or he would have died. his words not mine.

a local er nurse told me it was a common practice. i asked her because i thought he was b’sing me.
 
That’s why his numbers were over-inflated in the primary. He was supposedly the wonder candidate who could beat all the GOP except maybe Kasich, but that’s because people weren’t staring into the void most of this stances created and were faced with those and a possible Democratic Senate for the next four years.

I think some politics are at play here. Some Democrats are behind this probably knowing full well it won’t pass, and it’s just a virtue-signal to their hard left base that they can be crazy left too and shouldn’t be primaried in 2018. On the GOP side, McCain and Collins did the same thing—vote against ACA for 7 years and then when it really counts, back down.

This kind of stuff is designed to fool low information voters, the crowd that still believes the 5 PM local news, and the excuse-makers who say things like “well, gee, he/she got us this government benefit, so we owe them”.

And make no mistake, they do it because it works.
 
Too bad. Health care is not a Constitutional right.

And like it or not, care in the ER and for the elderly and end-of-life would be the first to go.

That doesn’t show up in those UN and European metrics that 60 minutes talk about, either.

But don’t worry, the left will be able to virtue-signal and “owe” the government even as their loved ones are turned away from the ER in emergencies and the hospitals doing so are protected under the law.

And then it’ll be “why, golly gee, I never thought that would happen in my country”.
 
That’s not rationing. That’s contractual agreement. And it would be better if the government would get out of the way so people would have more choices.
 
I wish I had a dollar everytime someone said this.

If it’s so great up there, why do so many people from Canada and all these other countries where health care is “free” pay tens of thousands of dollars to come to the US for treatment?

Also, were you aware of the Quebec Court ruling on access to private insurance in Canada?
 
So you’re using the quality of floors to argue health care policy?
 
SuperLuigi said:
Too bad. Health care is not a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...
See the 9th amendment. But to me Jesus taught to care for the sick and I don’t believe he meant wait to be cared for at an ER. Your own faith view may be different.
 
Last edited:
Nothing in the 9th about health care.

And are you arguing for a mix of government and religion? Because that’s a no-no on your end when it comes to so-called gay “marriage”…
 
LOL I wouldn’t expect it to be there. The point of the 9th amendment is to inform us that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned. This thread is not about gay marriage but it too has been determined to be a civil right. Besides various Christian religious communities today have come to understand marriage differently. But lets not talk about marriage on a healthcare thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top