Well for one Doctors are going to be seeing a lot more patience so you will less availability by the doctors. Also Doctors are going to getting less compensation so some will do something else. What do you think is gonna happen when revenues are going to be cut by as much as 50%? That will definitley affect being able to see your current doctor. How do you see M4A affecting the medical system? All positivley?
Not all positively but a net positive. Doctors not having to deal with all the different insurances plus medicare will mean they have a broader base of patients. Patients will be able to avoid regular check-ups, preventative care, and so there will be an increase in patient visits. Yes, the offices will be busy. They may have to hire more workers which is also positive. The increase in patient numbers and visits will help lessen the reduction in their income. Other businesses will see increases in productivity, reduced worker absences, students will also have fewer absences and be healthier. People will be spending less on healthcare and that means more money to be spent other places in the economy which will help that as well. Yes, there will be huge changes and inconveniences in all sorts of areas. That is true of any major changes that have ended up benefitting our society going back at least as far as the printing press. The less time we spend wringing our hands and worrying about it, the sooner we can start dealing with it and moving forward. This discussion is all in the theoretical realm right now. It doesn't matter what ideas the candidates have because none of them will make it through Congress as proposed. So discussing M4A is something for the future beyond the next president no matter what the candidates propose. I understand this. I am not expecting any of the candidates to be able to deliver on their ideas of health care, but I do like candidates that have a vision for the future.
Lets try something simple How about the fact that Doctors will not be getting paid as much? How does that affect everything. Or the fact that hospitals will not be funded as well. Why is backing M4A the only way to have a vision for the future? A net positive for who? What about the people who are negatively affected by M4A, **** them? What's wrong with a public option?
That is fair. If I believed the quality of care would remain at the current level of Medicare I would support a single payer system.
Doctors being paid less doesn't seem to affect health outcomes in other countries, it seems like their hospitals are funded well enough, considering again, the health outcomes. If you want a specific health outcome, I deeply care about infant mortality rates, we are last amongst all wealthy nations and that is an abomination. This is just one issue where we are sorely lacking, there are many more. A net positive for the INCREASING number of tens of millions of Americans who don't have insurance, who are underinsured, the 40% of all Americans that can't afford a $400 emergency. Me, I'm uninsured, fully employed (independent contractor), and desperately need healthcare, I just can't afford it, and I'm not alone or rare. M4A isn't the only vision for the future, it's just the best one. The very few who experience slight negatives? Sure **** them, like we currently say a big **** you to tens of millions who are uninsured, to the 50k people who die every year due to lack of access to healthcare, like we do to all the people struggling to pay medical debts, going bankrupt. BUT while we say **** them, also give them and everybody they love comprehensive health coverage for their entire lives. It's mean, I know. The public option. It could be an improvement. Is that public option comprehensive healthcare that is free of charge at terms of service in the same exact way M4A would be? Will there be very strict rules on private health insurance companies about providing comprehensive healthcare to the minimum standard of M4A, and will there be strict rules on these companies pushing their sick insurees off of their plan and onto the public option to maximize profit (and subsequentially dragging the public option down)? If implemented in a very specific and strict way, it could be fine, the reality is, the vast majority of "M4A who want it plans" aren't set up the way they need to be to work so well. Most of the people advocating public options, like Pete, are bought and paid for by the private healthcare industry.
It's not good for the doctors who won't be paid as much bank accounts. It's better for their patients. We don't know how much less they will be paid. I'm not sure the effect on hospitals funding. People that couldn't afford their bills and went bankrupt would be better off and the hospitals would get their money in those situations. 66.5 % of all personal bankruptcies are tied to medical issues. It isn't the only possible vision for the future.Similar programs in other nations is one that works better than our healthcare system does for them. I'm open to other ideas. It is a net positive for the nation, our health, our productivity, our budget, the general workforce. The public option is only a half step. It is an improvement but the costs for health care won't be reduced near as much.
There aren't many professions in America with an average pay as high as a doctors. Some specialist might make 400k instead instead of 700k he is making today. What job is he going to get that guarantees about 400k with very high job security? Many Med school admission rates are already <10%. Maybe we need to weed out some people who are just doing it for the money. Would that really be a bad thing?
Pete is a disingenuous platitude king, IMO. Look, I know most (@B-Bob , @KingCheetah , others) wouldn't take me, or @DreamShook 's word on this stuff as outspoken Bernie supporters. But I found it interesting today that @Ottomaton , one of the more respected D&D posters, made a point about Pete being very slick by design. Perhaps you guys would find his opinion interesting. Super spot-on post. Pete has been the king of platitudes this election. What that means to me personally (not a point of Ottomaton ), is that Pete seems less concerned with promoting an ideology that he truly believes would help the country, and more concerned with becoming president. Major red flag to me.
This guy was for M4A and many progressive policies until he realized he could get more funding and media praise as a moderate. Now he is dumping all over everything he said he supported just a couple months ago. This stuff is still on the internet. Potus is the ultimate resume filler for Pete.
