Bernie Sanders Health Plan Savings for Nearly Everybody

Not all public health systems are created equal, and certainly the way they are funded as much as how those funds are administered has much to do with their effectiveness. If we took as much pride in a public health system as we did our armed forces, it would be, like our military, second to none.

 

That is my problem with Bernie, his idea may sound good at first, but they are not realistic unless he wants a revolution and civil war. I will have to go with Hillary.

 

To do that you'd have to make it as bloated and overly expensive as the military is.....and that would likely bankrupt the country especially given the fact that those who would push for such things also want to up pretty much every entitlement program which already has a choke hold on the budget.

Also, you may talk about how the military is "second to none" but they were still prepping to fight the cold war as recently as 10 or 12 years ago and hundreds died before they figured out that they should armor the Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military might have near infinite resources but more often than not, they don't use them wisely.

The health care version of that is the VA. Funding wasn't really the problem with the VA, though more funding is always a good thing, the real problem is that the funding was/is used foolishly.

 

I think one and a half out of every two commercials are medical/health/insurance related commercials on prime time spots too. Somebody gotta pay for those commercials!!!

 

What does his plan do about drugs. Didn't see **** in there about them.

 

I think a system like Israel's would address those problems. Oddly, enough, it's a recent invention (1995).

It's composed of four competing HMOs that are funded by a compulsory tax, with an option of paying upgrades for specific services and allowing an option to pay for private doctors and hospitals for those that can afford it and want things like private rooms in hospitals.

Participation is compulsory, and the basics are good enough to protect one from bankruptcy -- they even pay a small disability stipend to people with terminal illnesses so they are not a hardship to their family. I had a friend who battled brain cancer (and lost unfortunately) but there was zero financial burden on his family.

Each health fund also has a smart phone app that allows you to punch in your ailment and it will connect you to the nearest doctor in your HMO that can see you the soonest, which in most cities is within an hour and walking distance. For all of Israel's problems and internal debates, there is little complaint about healthcare there other than the two free abortions women in military service are allowed during their service, and even public consensus on that won't see that go away any time soon.

Drug costs are subsidized at the pharmacy -- they are the same for everyone, so no insurance is better than any other or required to buy those. So even as a student without paying into the system, I paid no more than $10 to $20 for anything I needed.

 

Maybe if we installed a parliamentary system with PR voting, Sanders could lead a Green/Socialist party which could coalition with the Center left Party to push forward single payer in return for something else, presuming the Trumpists, Paulists, Evangelicals and the mainstream Consevative party are unable to form a coalition of their own, - it would obviously mean risking a vote of no confidence however.

Otherwise it is not realistic at all to expect a single payer system is viable in Senator Sanders' lifetime due to structural issues.

 

The same was said of Marriage Equality and gay people serving in the military.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MAFlQ6fU4GM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Without Copay of some type the system is bound to be abused, people over whelming the healthcare system because everything is "free".

 

On his website he says he wants to allow Americans to buy drugs from Canada. I think it's a great idea.

 

Ummm what?

IF the country saves trillions of dollars, that's great. Who, specifically, are people losing out on that money? Doctors? Nurses? Hospitals? etc?

 

That's the plan tho? I mean, we can already kinda do that. Ill conceived at best. It's like having a grand unworkable scheme to build a mausoleum and saying we will get the bricks at Lowe's.

 

We should print money and use it to publicly own a non-profit entity yo buy the production of the 100 most common drugs; and use a chunk of the savings to fund pure research. Then own the patents on the breakthrough drugs. Maybe you could fund some non-profitable, rare illnesses cures.

It's better than printing money for banks. Everybody could buy drug stocks on the news. Government buying runs up the shares.

 

And it took 20 years from that video for it to become a reality, even though virtually zero multibillion (trillion l?) dollar industries stood on the other side.

But anyway, i will humor you. Why don't you guys tell me the electoral /legislative path to single payer that President Sanders has after inauguration day 2017? Which seats flip, who comes on board?

 

In my lifetime, Republicans used to be between here and here on immigration:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6gYHMwEdvIk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


It's a fair question, and the answer is, nothing will change the status quo without political will from the electorate to change it, and that won't happen without framing it in policy discussions that provoke a shift in opinion, but Bernie Sanders is certainly doing his damndest to do that.

Sanders supporters and Republicans both at least agree that ACA is not the solution they want, and I'm as surprised as anyone at how well Sanders is polling on issues like this, but while I don't have a plan to convince Paul Ryan to embrace a Danish single-payer health scheme, I'm very optimistic at the growing number within the US electorate that no longer consider wealth equality and single payer healthcare to be taboo subjects relegated to Trotskyite reading groups. That conversation still has a long way to go, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a compromise can be made that satisfies everyone's needs.

Opinions on things like gays in the military have shifted drastically in the last decade, which is why Hillary Clinton looks awkward for having not been on the right side of what Barry Goldwater supported a generation before, much less Bernie Sanders. I'm sure her careful calculation on the issue was well thought out -- I cannot think of a single pundit that predicted it in the early 2000s, but making the "pragmatic" decision to adhere to public opinion in one moment hurts her credibility in the moments that mattered later. And for that matter, who predicted the rise of Donald J Trump and the populist surge from working class white men at odds with establishment Republican positions that were only a few years ago considered ironclad?

When LBJ pushed through Civil Rights, prevailing opinion was that it was "too soon" to allow black people to have equality and that the country "wasn't ready" for it. Being "pragmatic" about it and refusing to support it still put legislators on the wrong side of history when it came because supporting it was simply the right thing to do. Seeing people go into massive debt to seek medical treatment is a serious wrong, and while it's a relatively recent happening, it's completely ****ing unsustainable for any society to permit. One way or another, a correction will come for the problem, and electing politicians not beholden to insurance companies is at least a start.