What kind of health care system do you want? (Poll)

And the opposite is also true, namely south of the border. Although this may be more for dentistry and weight loss type stuff. But I have seen plenty of Americans looking outside the US for their care.

 

Yes: "GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

Now this clause is not without controversy because many libertarians disagree that this can be used to cover healthcare (or really anything.) But your question was straightforward and I think the above clause is also.

I think the reason we're seeing M4A and Medicare opt-in and raising taxes on the rich are all polling well is because the country is making it's leftward shift after a generation of Reaganism and the failure of trickle-down. Forcing people to change to public insurance is still too scary for the majority, but Medicare opt-in is polling incredibly well.

A single-payer system (i.e. M4A) will acheive your first three objectives better than any other method. To repeat my earlier post, almost all nations that have single-payer also have supplementary, higher tier, and/or private insurance to give more or better care for those who can pay more. (your fourth point.)

The only reason it wouldn't be tenable is because of generations fear-mongering from one political party have made people afraid of the solution looking them in the face. But the fear is a reality and dem candidates have to navigate it.

This is an important point, for more than one reason. You're right, whether it's done in a flash or slowly (Kamala's new plan is a 10-year turnover to public care), the current American industry is huge and employs tons of people and hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs.

But the reason this is true is because the for-profit system is so incredibly inefficient. If you are arguing that a single-payer system would unemploy hundreds of thousands of people, then you are confirming that the new system is far more efficient. To repeat what I typed earlier, Medicare overhead costs are about 2-3%, private is 12-18%. If the government ran a healthcare system that employed hundreds of thousands more bureaucrats and operated at a magnitude of order more expensive than it's private counterpart, there would be cries for revolution. But for some reason, if private industry does something at far greater cost, with far less efficiency, and is motivated to deny care and allow people to die so companies can make greater profits, that's ok because... well, I don't know why.

 

@Nolen

Thank you for that post. You've addressed and answered many of the prevalent concerns regarding this issue. It would seem that if your summation is correct then there is a huge messaging problem on the left. Fear (the primary driver of Republicans) is an easier theme to deliver and the Democrats have their work cut out for them.

This leads in to the 2020 campaign and if the candidates can effectively lay out strategies that the US public will buy in to. We all know the hardcore left and most of this site's D&D posters are on board but, again, can D's get elected and then get enough people to play ball to implement changes?

 

Propaganda from profit motivated players is just too easy in the healthcare arena. The very same insurance companies that deny claims every day fought the ACA with a Death Panels campaign. Anything more than an optional buy in is going to be election politics suicide.

 

I think the flipside is that the fear is not unfounded. Dems talk about the big picture and end result, but really don't like to explain how you get there. For example, the end result basically involves the deletion of the entire insurance industry, which employs well over a million people - from executives to accountants to marketing to secretaries and janitors. What happens to all those people and their families? The big picture is that prices come down - but that means lower reimbursement rates. What happens to all the doctors and hospitals that are built on the current economic model?

Even ignoring the issues of people being unsure of what kind of new insurance they will get, there are endless questions that affect a lot of people across the health care industry. You're talking about reconfiguring nearly one-sixth of the entire US GDP. Kamala Harris tried to lay out a 10 year transition plan, but even that has very few details. Bernie wants to do it in 4 years and has no details at all. People *should* be skeptical - I don't think there's any precedent of such a big change over such a small time in a democratic/capitalist type country.

 

(an aside, the mini series Traitors was set around the development of the NHS in England after WWII https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7371896/ .... and the partition of Palestine)

 

That money ultimately will mostly be absorbed through taxes to pay for changes in the system.

 

This.

I can tell you that a lot of people with good insurance coverage are very concerned and fear their overall quality of care will suffer. We talk about "greater good" but asking people to give up something that is important and they are happy with isn't something most people are willing to do. Now, those with good coverage are the minority of voters but I suspect they are also those voters that do actually show up to vote.

 

The kind where people aren't afraid to see a doctor because they know the can't afford it if something is wrong, so they don't bother going.

My wife was recommended for a hysterectomy, and despite insurance and a decent level of income was concerned about affording it and whether she should wait and just live in pain (which she already had been). How many people are dealing with similar issues don't have insurance or the income to afford the steep deductibles?