I'd like to see California pass the legislation, implement it first, and then see how it goes. If a state full of far left liberals can't pull it off, it certainly can't be done on national level.
just an observation from my trip to Europe...they seemed a lot more fit than your typical American...
They almost did until a cooler head prevailed and tabled the discussion. No plan to pay for such a monster.
How about an extensive guide to preventative care for all as well. Heck give people a bonus for following it. But that doesn't fit the medical care agenda.
Politicians are not going enact something that destroys a multi-billion industry(health insurance) overnight even if it's the right thing to do. The only chance of getting single payer is by easing into it. From my point of view, the only way that happens is to to let people buy into medicare and make insurance companies compete with it. However, none of this attacks the real problem which is supply and competition. We need to make it easier for people to provide healthcare. Invest in medical schools and nursing schools so we can have more people providing healthcare without taking out a mortgage. Reform the FDA so that pharmaceutical companies have to compete more, and make it easier to bring drugs to market. Make more drugs over-the-counter and let more health care providers including pharmacist prescribe some medicines without going to the doctor. We also need to tackle the paper work burden of healthcare. We could save billions of dollars a year by standardizing healthcare and insurance form processing.
So Bernie is trying to "remake the Democratic Party?" He might try being a Democrat as a first step. There's almost an arrogance to Bernie when he speaks about certain issues. That if you don't understand something he says, like how to pay for "Medicare for All," it's your fault, not his. He's definitely running in 2020. I'll say that much. He needs to work on his message as much as he's worked on his appearance. Saw him recently on Colbert, I think, and he's had some work done. I don't care that he has, merely mentioning it as further proof (to me) that he's running for President in 2020, presumably as a Democrat. Did he ever join the party? Perhaps someone can help me there. I genuinely don't recall hearing that he's a member of the Democratic Party. Glynch? You out there?
Removing insurance benefits from employers to tax payers would not result in a 1:1 pay raise to employees immediately. Benefits are a huge selling point to entice and retain employees in highly competitive markets. The market would adjust itself in time to reflect this. In less competitive markets, employment benefits often suck.
What is the fundamental difference between Medicare for all vs Single Payer? This of course is assuming medicare for all would need expansion.
Single payer tomorrow is not the right answer. Allowing a person to buy in to Medicare/Medicaid makes sense. Let the market decide if government/private insurance is better.
Medicare is a form of single payer. Medicare is a fully federally managed insurance program that contracts directly with hospitals and health care providers. Not all countries with "single payers" follow this model. Canada for example is more like Medicaid. Provinces run their own program and the federal government in Canada provides matching funds in exchange for meeting minimum coverage standards (like Medicaid). Also Canada has a pretty healthy supplemental health insurance marketplace that is private if you want to improve your coverage beyond the provincial insurance plans. As for an equivalent to a single payer built around Medicare, France is probably the closest equivalent (federal insurance that is actually managed by some private non-profits with a privately run health care system). Other examples are like the UK where the government not only owns the insurance system but also the hospital system as well (so more like the VA in that instance). Also one thing to note, the ACA originally had a Medicare expansion in it that was paired with Medicaid expansion. The original plan was to lower the Medicare age to 55 which would have covered a rather tricky demographic that insurance companies don't want to deal with. The idea was to lower the age of the risk pools on the individual market by expanding Medicare to lower premiums on the exchanges. Medicare expansion died when Joe Lieberman said he wouldn't vote for the bill if it expanded Medicare. The whole plan was for the government to cover the poorest and older workers that weren't retirement age in order to create an individual market that was younger and healthier. Didn't quite happen that way but that was the thought.
Politicians on both sides seem to have this magical increase in courage when they become apart of the minority party.
Right. It would take a good deal of time for that to trickle down to everyone. Also: 1) Not all employees in America get benefits from their employer. They'd still be getting hit with the $500 tax 2) Not all employee who do get benefits from their employer have a cost to the employer of $500. For many businesses the cost of a single employee coverage is well under $500. 3) Part time employees often have no insurance at all and definitely can't afford an extra $500 a month out of their paychecks A $500 a month tax on every American would cripple a lot of people. I really can't believe that was suggested.
I was hoping for a post like this while reading the entire thread. There are people in this thread saying that others have no idea what they are talking about. That may be true, and for the most part would include me. The thing is though there are a ton of models to look at in other countries. So when asked how to pay for it, there are actual examples. This country more money is put into healthcare than anywhere else. So apparently something is wrong and the different entities making money off the system obviously do not want that to change. If people do not think there should be some type of single payer system and are ok with what has been healthcare in this country for the last 25 years. I guess It seems to me like that is an admittance that the U.S. is incapable of providing the people of this country with healthcare. Perhaps that is true. The missiles, jets, carriers, tanks, etc etc etc don't pay for themselves. The sheer amount of money the U.S. puts into the military may be necessary; it may not. I hope though more than anything this world is a better place 30 years from now when my son is raising a child. Because right now humans in general just are not quite there yet.
The mistake you're making is connecting all our healthcare spending problems to the insurance structure. The problems go far deeper that than - just changing to single payer doesn't mean health care costs are going to fall in line with other countries. Your last statement underlines the problem - you give a false alternative between "single payer" and being "ok with healthcare of the last 25 years" as though the former solves all the problems. If we figure out a way to go to a Medicare-for-all single payer type system, we'd STILL be spending more than everyone else.
A $500.00 a month flat tax across the board is ridiculous. It should be a percentage. I think the OP was just throwing a number out there as an example. If one makes 150k a year, $500 a month is not that much compared to someone who makes 30k a year.
I agree. I was/am typing on a phone at the moment. I tried to somewhat connect my comment to the one I replied to. Which the poster brought up a few examples in why healthcare costs are astronomical in some cases. Whether you call it single payer or not. I suppose I meant something also not necessarily mandated but affordable enough that everyone wants it. Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are compensated fairly. Etc. Spaceghost I believe said this thread disgusts him. What is disgusting to me is people raising their children to be overweight, uneducated slobs that can not believe an illegal immigrant may be taking their jobs. I digress, perhaps him/her and I can meet in the middle somewhere with our disgust.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...onalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf $500 dollar/ month is a lot of money and it might not be politically feasible, but the current system is spending more than that already. I already posted the number 85% of the country is under some group plan. Average healthcare cost per person is 10k which is 833 per month/person. The single biggest spender on healthcare in the US is the US government. Medicare and Medicaid accounts for 37% of healthcare spend. Those two programs cost us 286/month/person (320 million people) and most of us don't use medicaid or medicare. These program cover about 130 million people. As you can see the current system is spending more than its receiving. Maybe currently some of us are paying more taxes to make up for the difference but really we are paying 300 bucks/month for no coverage.
