Sanders goes after the Mayo Clinic. "Bernie Sanders Picks the Wrong Enemy": https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/bernie-sanders-picks-the-wrong-enemy.php excerpt: Mayo’s doctors have saved countless lives, as compared with Bernie Sanders, who has saved…none. But what is Bernie’s point? Rural America has indeed seen a contraction of medical services, hospital closings, and so on, and this is a concern in many rural communities. But is “Medicare for all” the solution? No. There are plenty of people in small towns on Medicare. There are plenty more who have private insurance or are on Medicaid. The problem isn’t a lack of insurance, the problem is a lack of people. As agriculture has gotten progressively more efficient, fewer people are needed to work on farms, and many have moved to urban areas. “Medicare for all” would do nothing to address the issue of declining rural health services, which is caused by a lack of demand, not by a lack of insurance. Of course, full-scale socialized medicine could “solve” the problem by simply establishing hundreds of thousands of money-losing clinics and hospitals in small towns across America. All that is needed, on that scenario, is taxpayers willing to foot the bill. History tells us, however, that socialized medical systems, like the National Health Service in Great Britain, do not spend vast amounts of taxpayer money on low-demand services. Rather, they ruthlessly ration access to health care to keep costs down. The idea that under a far-left regime the government would pay to establish low-demand clinics or hospitals in Springfield, Lamberton, Fairmont, LeRoy, La Crescent and Waukon–I’ve never heard of three of those towns–is delusional. Bernie’s attack on the Mayo Clinic isn’t smart politics, either. I don’t think Sanders is a serious contender for the Democratic nomination, but if he were, attacking the Mayo Clinic is a sure-fire way to concede Minnesota to Donald Trump, who almost carried the state in 2016. In the 21st Century, Minnesota’s struggling economy has added a perceptible number of net jobs in only two sectors, health care and education. The Mayo Clinic is a rare bright spot in the state’s economy, and, remarkably, is now the state’s number one employer. So, way to go, Bernie: You are now officially an even weaker presidential contender than Hillary Clinton.
And the free market answer is... don't invest in outlets with low demand. So, the argument here seems to be that La Crescent is effed either way? If they're effed either way, why not socialize medicine?
It's one opinion in a sea of opinions. I thought I would share it since you dont get that many pro Bernie stuff in the media. Calm down.
Has anyone here been a part of a national health care system? My own personal experience: I have for over 10 years, and let me tell you, while the system is not perfect, I would never, ever, want to return to a private system again. The mere thought of needing to think about finances or having insurance in the event of a medical emergency for myself or a loved one just turns my stomach. Once you get into a system where you are never again asked a single question about insurance or billing for medical care is a relief that is hard to put into words. No more doctors bills, paying co-pays, fighting with your insurance company, submitting claims, etc. As well, the care and competence of the doctors was every bit as good as in the USA. It is unbelievable the USA does not have a national system. It's too bad it's been so politicized. Funny enough, for all the talk about restricting freedom, I had more freedom with primary care doctors in the nationalized system than I ever did in the private - basically you can go to whatever clinic or doctor you want to.
Yes I have and it is a mixed bag. There are advantages and preventative care is strong. More complicated care? The USA is better.
