Bernie Sanders Unveils his Medicare for All Plan

TLR Is Mental Poison

The Coli Is Not For You
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
46,178
Reputation
7,464
Daps
105,765
Reppin
The Opposite Of Elliott Wilson's Mohawk
Selling healthcare as a "right" is a mistake. Socialists are so fukking stupid :idiot: There are plenty of common sense reasons and real world examples that demonstrate why a single payer plan is a good idea. You don't have to shame/heartstring/comrade people into getting on board. It pisses me off because this goofy ass sales pitch is only going to turn MORE people off from this :snoop:
 

wickedsm

Auntie Mozelle
Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
14,567
Reputation
12,760
Daps
92,593
havent read the whole thread, will get back to it later
but wondering if anyone has mentioned the associated costs of medical malpractice insurance?
obviously we want medical professionals to carry that insurance
but their premiums directly influence cost.

i had a Dr some years ago who literally saved my life
who could no longer afford to practice because his premiums as a solo physician
went up to some unGodly sum like 1 mill a year in the early 2000s

so many intertwined parts to this debate
i wish it was just as easy as "coverage for all" "accross the board 10% tax increase"
"done"
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
68,905
Reputation
8,037
Daps
208,935
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
Selling healthcare as a "right" is a mistake. Socialists are so fukking stupid :idiot: There are plenty of common sense reasons and real world examples that demonstrate why a single payer plan is a good idea. You don't have to shame/heartstring/comrade people into getting on board. It pisses me off because this goofy ass sales pitch is only going to turn MORE people off from this :snoop:

FDR in 1944 put healthcare as part of his Economic Bill of Rights.

 

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,378
Reputation
2,812
Daps
47,634
Reppin
NULL
havent read the whole thread, will get back to it later
but wondering if anyone has mentioned the associated costs of medical malpractice insurance?
obviously we want medical professionals to carry that insurance
but their premiums directly influence cost.

i had a Dr some years ago who literally saved my life
who could no longer afford to practice because his premiums as a solo physician
went up to some unGodly sum like 1 mill a year in the early 2000s

so many intertwined parts to this debate
i wish it was just as easy as "coverage for all" "accross the board 10% tax increase"
"done"

This is a narrative driven primarily by the companies that manage malpractice insurance. Are there some doctors that have insanely high insurance rates? Absolutely. And since insurance is regulated on the state level, some places like NY have generally higher rates than others. And some practice areas (OBGYN for instance) have higher risks for complications and thus insurance rates are higher.

But insurance companies keep their malpractice insurance rates high EVEN though costs associated with malpractice suits have DECREASED. Even in states that pass tort reform laws (limiting the amount of money plaintiffs can be awarded and leading to overall decrease in the number of suits filed), the insurance companies do not lower insurance rates because it is an easy source of additional revenue and the customer has little to no recourse (they obviously can't practice without it). It's a way to pad their bottom line and offset losses they're incurring in other insurance lines.

And as usual our media is too lazy to really dig down into the story to find out the truth.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
68,905
Reputation
8,037
Daps
208,935
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
That was just a thought exercise. You can't have a "right" to someone else's services and property

So are you saying we don't have a right to medical care if we're sick or injured.

We should let people die and not care of their situation.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
302,087
Reputation
-34,031
Daps
611,660
Reppin
The Deep State
So are you saying we don't have a right to medical care if we're sick or injured.

We should let people die and not care of their situation.
There's few "rights" you have.

Frame this as a value, first and foremost

Weimar Germany came up with government Healthcare as a means of placating the public rising up
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
68,905
Reputation
8,037
Daps
208,935
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
WELL THAT SETTLES IT! INSURANCE AND DRUG LOBBYISTS SAY MEDICARE FOR ALL “CANNOT WORK”
Zaid Jilani, Lee Fang

September 15 2017, 3:12 p.m.

The for-profit health care industry and its political surrogates were quick to criticize the sweeping universal Medicare legislation unveiled this week by Sen. Bernie Sanders and more than a dozen Senate Democrats.

“Whether it’s called single-payer or Medicare for all, government-controlled health care cannot work,” David Merritt, vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for health insurance companies, said in a statement to reporters.

The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, another insurance lobby group, released a statement declaring that it “adamantly opposes the creation of a single-payer regime, and our guard is up on these efforts.” The release cited the rising popularity of single-payer proposals in California, New York and Colorado, and now Sanders’s effort in Congress.

“These are worrisome developments, and the increased volume on single-payer is setting off alarms on what Democratic priorities could represent following seven years of failed ACA repeal efforts,” the CIAB statement noted.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC funded by a number of health care interests — including health insurance giant Anthem, pharmaceutical firm Amgen, and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobby group for biotech companies — also sprung to attack the proposal.

The group called the bill the “latest radical and expensive plan for government-run health care” in an announcement on the CLF website.

Former Rep. Bruce Morrison, the Connecticut Democrat who left Congress and is now a lobbyist for the American Hospital Association, dismissed the plan as doing too much to disrupt employer-based coverage.

“Half of America gets their health insurance coverage on the job,” Morrison said. Single payer would replace coverage for some 150 million people, he noted. “If you just leaped to Medicare for All, you would totally disrupt the expectations of all those people. And that would not be a good idea.”

A similar argument was made by former Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, who lost his seat and is also now lobbying for a number of health care interests, including the health insurance firm Aetna and drugmaker Novo Nordisk.

“Pretty consistently, people value the coverage they have. Any proposal that says you have to give up the coverage that you know for coverage that we’ll create under a new government program will be a difficult sell,” Pomeroy told The Intercept.

“I think this an organizing tool to continue to build support for a dramatic further overhaul of the health reform system. And I think that’s its fundamental purpose and no one thinks it’s going to pass anytime soon,” he concluded.

The universal Medicare proposal released this week extends health insurance coverage to every single American free of co-pays, premiums, and deductibles — and has long been viewed as a direct threat to highly profitable health-related industries and providers.

The bill calls for gradually expanding Medicare coverage, starting with the young and phasing other segments of the population in. The plan would cover all essential services, including routine doctor visits, emergency room care, mental health, dental, out patient care, and forms of treatment.

Sanders’s office also released a statement this week laying out various financing methods for the bill, including an employer tax, closing tax loopholes, and a variety of progressive income-based taxes.

Private health insurers hate the plan because it would largely replace them. Drugmakers fear single payer because the Sanders bill calls for price negotiation on pharmaceutical products, a policy now barred by a provision created by drug lobbyists and their allies in Congress. Other providers are worried that an empowered single health provider will be able to use its collective bargaining power to cut waste and investigate price gouging.

The unrivaled political power of health care industries — health interests are routinely near the top of rankings for lobby spending and campaign donations — have made controlling costs incredibly difficult. Americans spend far more on health care per person than any country in the world while consistently ranking fairly low on a range of health outcomes, including life expectancy.

The aforementioned lobby group America’s Health Insurance Plans secretly spent $86 million on dark money efforts in 2009 to derail the Affordable Care Act, with a special focus on eliminating the public option provision. As The Intercept first reported, the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, the other insurance group blasting the Sanders effort, similarly mobilized part of the effort to defeat a ballot measure in Colorado last year to establish a state-based single-payer plan.
 

TLR Is Mental Poison

The Coli Is Not For You
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
46,178
Reputation
7,464
Daps
105,765
Reppin
The Opposite Of Elliott Wilson's Mohawk
So are you saying we don't have a right to medical care if we're sick or injured.

We should let people die and not care of their situation.

Doctors are bound by oath to take care of sick people so that's not an issue. What is an issue is how to sell a single payer plan to people who hate the gov't and don't want to feel like their taxes are going to people they hate. People who didn't want ACA AND are suffering under the crushing weight of its myriad of failures. For everyone who's life it saved there's probably 10 people in states on the brink of or that have already lost their exchanges. So shyt like this is already ideologically in the red, for bullshyt and legitimate reasons. Calling anyone skeptical of this cold hearted or racist or w/e is not going to work, just like it hasn't worked for anything else progressives try to push. They (y'all?) need to put those degrees to work and come up with a convincing pitch for people outside their bubble.
 

TLR Is Mental Poison

The Coli Is Not For You
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
46,178
Reputation
7,464
Daps
105,765
Reppin
The Opposite Of Elliott Wilson's Mohawk
Based on what? And is it an individual service if we pay for it collectively and all have a stake? Don't I have a right to any service I paid for?
Property rights are about as essential as rights can get. And obviously if you pay for a service you are obligated to get it. But a lot of people receive healthcare they don't pay for- which, by the way, I'm fine with.

My gripe is all this ambiguous liberal guilt "its a right" nonsense. We can put it to dollars and cents. Sick people can't work. People afraid of medical costs don't go to doctors, and wind up in the ER with avoidable but expensive shyt like heart attacks. Fragmented insurance pools cost more due to the way risk works. Etc. There are so many practical common sense reasons why a single payer program is a good idea, but progressives have their heads so far up their asses they won't even stop to consider them when laying out their case. Why? :why:
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
28,993
Reputation
4,599
Daps
63,671
Property rights are about as essential as rights can get. And obviously if you pay for a service you are obligated to get it. But a lot of people receive healthcare they don't pay for- which, by the way, I'm fine with.

My gripe is all this ambiguous liberal guilt "its a right" nonsense. We can put it to dollars and cents. Sick people can't work. People afraid of medical costs don't go to doctors, and wind up in the ER with avoidable but expensive shyt like heart attacks. Fragmented insurance pools cost more due to the way risk works. Etc. There are so many practical common sense reasons why a single payer program is a good idea, but progressives have their heads so far up their asses they won't even stop to consider them when laying out their case. Why? :why:
Number 1, everything you said is false because progressives do make that argument. Number 2, they are purposefully shifting from that argument because it relies on arguing on the terms of the right. When you're dealing solely in terms of efficiency then you're arguing on the terms of republicans who always want to argue costs over human lives and proliferate this earners versus takers argument. When you frame it as a right then you're walking away from things like means testing and erasing the whole earners versus takers dichotomy. Public policies that highlight specific groups are almost always less popular. And your taxes argument is ridiculous because everyone pays taxes. It's just more consumption taxes for low income people.
 

Techniec

Drugs and Kalashnikovs
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,855
Reputation
1,938
Daps
23,272
Reppin
W/S 416
Selling healthcare as a "right" is a mistake. Socialists are so fukking stupid :idiot: There are plenty of common sense reasons and real world examples that demonstrate why a single payer plan is a good idea. You don't have to shame/heartstring/comrade people into getting on board. It pisses me off because this goofy ass sales pitch is only going to turn MORE people off from this :snoop:

What does that say about the idiots who are turned off by the idea of healthcare being a right
 

TLR Is Mental Poison

The Coli Is Not For You
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
46,178
Reputation
7,464
Daps
105,765
Reppin
The Opposite Of Elliott Wilson's Mohawk
Number 1, everything you said is false because progressives do make that argument. Number 2, they are purposefully shifting from that argument because it relies on arguing on the terms of the right. When you're dealing solely in terms of efficiency then you're arguing on the terms of republicans who always want to argue costs over human lives and proliferate this earners versus takers argument. When you frame it as a right then you're walking away from things like means testing and erasing the whole earners versus takers dichotomy. Public policies that highlight specific groups are almost always less popular. And your taxes argument is ridiculous because everyone pays taxes. It's just more consumption taxes for low income people.
Let me ask you something.

If you need the right to get your bill passed....why the fukk on Google Earth would you not frame your proposal in the terms of the right??????? :mindblown: :why:

Jesus fukking Christ. Have we got to the point in this country where considering the perspectives and concerns of anyone who doesn't think like we do as a bad thing? You sound like the right wingers you hate. Like I said, you progressives need to step the fukk out of your echo chamber. If your ideas only make sense to people who think just like you they must not be that good
 
Top