Dem candidates face political risks when pressed on health care specifics

[TalkRadio1]

When Sen. Kamala D. Harris spoke about health care at a CNN forum Monday evening, she threw her support behind a "Medicare-for-all" plan, sounding similar to other candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

But when pressed for details, the senator from California explained the idea in a way most Democrats assiduously avoid: She agreed that Medicare-for-all also means private insurance for none.

Another area Democrats have downplayed is the insurance employees whose jobs would be at risk. About 512,000 Americans work directly for health insurance companies, and another 908,000 work in closely related industries, according to an estimate by America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.

"I think we could never afford that; you're talking about trillions and trillions of dollars," Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor and potential 2020 candidate, said of Medicare-for-all while visiting a factory in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He added that the idea would "bankrupt" the country.

https://m.stamfordadvocate.com/news...idates-face-political-risks-when-13571912.php

 

[oggbashan]

If the US was to introduce a European style health care for all, they could have universal cover and the ability to have private health care insurance as well.

European countries vary in how they provide universal health cover. Picking the best parts of several systems could provide great cover and allow people to buy additional cover if they wanted.

What almost all the European systems do is provide universal cover at a significantly lower cost than the US currently pays.

But it will never happen because 'the US is different' and big Pharma influences US politicians too much.

I can use the UK's NHS system, or my private health insurance, or pay direct by debit or credit card. For an emergency, the NHS is always better. For cold surgery e.g. hip replacement my private cover would be faster. I can choose, but I cannot choose to opt out of the taxation that pays for the NHS.

 

[HisArpy]

If the US was to introduce a European style health care for all, they could have universal cover and the ability to have private health care insurance as well.

European countries vary in how they provide universal health cover. Picking the best parts of several systems could provide great cover and allow people to buy additional cover if they wanted.

What almost all the European systems do is provide universal cover at a significantly lower cost than the US currently pays.

But it will never happen because 'the US is different' and big Pharma influences US politicians too much.

I can use the UK's NHS system, or my private health insurance, or pay direct by debit or credit card. For an emergency, the NHS is always better. For cold surgery e.g. hip replacement my private cover would be faster. I can choose, but I cannot choose to opt out of the taxation that pays for the NHS.

What part of "It's gonna double your taxes" don't you understand?

 

[oggbashan]

What part of "It's gonna double your taxes" don't you understand?

It shouldn't.

European versions show it costs much less than Americans currently pay for healthcare.

But being the US, and US politicians? It won't ever happen or if it does, Big Pharma will ensure that it costs far more than it should by special pleading and lobbying.

 

[HisArpy]

It shouldn't.

European versions show it costs much less than Americans currently pay for healthcare.

But being the US, and US politicians? It won't ever happen or if it does, Big Pharma will ensure that it costs far more than it should by special pleading and lobbying.

The US Gov gets approx 4-6 Trillion each year from tax revenue. Medicare for all is projected to require an ADDITIONAL 3.2 trillion PER YEAR in taxes.

Let's see...

4 trillion plus 3.2 Trillion is almost 2 times the current tax rate...

FACTS matter. For those in Euro countries who don't give a shit how much your Gov taxes you (mostly because you can't do anything about it), the numbers seem trivial. It's not trivial to us.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It shouldn't.

You're talking about a government who couldn't possibly pay any less than 1,500 dollars an aspirin.

Even though any of us can go down to wherever and get a 500ct. jar of the shit for 20 bucks.

 

[BBx18]

KrazedKunt backtracked on it TODAY

 

[oggbashan]

...

FACTS matter. For those in Euro countries who don't give a shit how much your Gov taxes you (mostly because you can't do anything about it), the numbers seem trivial. It's not trivial to us.

Of course we give a shit about how much taxes we pay. But our health care costs, whether state, insurance or private, however paid for, are far less than the US pays now.

The US Government is profligate compared to many European governments.

Look at this data, without universal cover in the US:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

 

[BotanyBoy]

Of course we give a shit about how much taxes we pay. But our health care costs, whether state, insurance or private, however paid for, are far less than the US pays now.

The US Government is profligate compared to many European governments.

Look at this data, without universal cover in the US:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

And despite all that spending the US gets pretty much NOTHING for it.

The answer is to to not give the US government MORE.

The answer is to stop giving them ANYTHING and let people take care of their own shit.

 

[oggbashan]

And despite all that spending the US gets pretty much NOTHING for it.

The answer is to to not give the US government MORE.

The answer is to stop giving them ANYTHING and let people take care of their own shit.

No. The answer is to elect representatives that will sort out the US government's mess and ignore the lobbying by financial interests.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No. The answer is to elect representatives that will sort out the US government's mess and ignore the lobbying by financial interests.

No? Don't let people spend their own money and make their own choices?

Why is the idea of letting people keep their money and make their own choices SO massively offensive to Europeans?

We've been trying for some time, it's not going to happen....time to take the parasite state out back and put a bullet in it's head so we can get back to the "Pay me" HC system.

 

[oggbashan]

No? Don't let people spend their own money and make their own choices?

Why is the idea of letting people keep their money and make their own choices SO massively offensive to Europeans?

It's not. But when our governments provide universal healthcare at a lower cost than insurance most of us can't understand how US citizens pay far more and let some people go without.

Governments can be efficient and provide value for money. I know that isn't the American way but it is incomprehensible to many of us.

In the UK at least the NHS is supported by ALL political parties. They argue about how it is run, but not against the principle.

Many GB posters seem to have the idea that because I'm OK for health cover no one else matters. That comes across us unfeeling and selfish which most Americans are not.

 

[pointless]

it's incomprehensible to many of us as well.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's not. But when our governments provide universal healthcare at a lower cost than insurance most of us can't understand how US citizens pay far more and let some people go without.

The GOVERNMENT does that....they fucked it up, they've done nothing BUTT fuck it up for almost half a century now. Starting with Reagan of all people.

In the last round we the people we gave Obama/(D)'s a chance to un-fuck it and they fucked it even worse instead.

Governments can be efficient and provide value for money. I know that isn't the American way but it is incomprehensible to many of us.

Can...but our government is NOT set up for that. In fact it's set up AGAINST it and it's making the (D)'s job of trying pretty much impossible.

In the UK at least the NHS is supported by ALL political parties. They argue about how it is run, but not against the principle.

I know, you lot have been a good stride left of us from the get go and that is still the case today.

Many GB posters seem to have the idea that because I'm OK for health cover no one else matters. That comes across us unfeeling and selfish which most Americans are not.

No, most are not.

Most traditional western/English liberal M'aricans see others entitlement to our property as selfish and unfeeling. Because I'm being a responsible person and saving my dollars for a dark day, it should be MY choice to dip into that fund to help others by giving them MY property/time/efforts.

It is not the governments property/time/efforts OR concern and they have no legitimate claim to stick a gun to my head and force me to pay for some bug chasers HIV meds or some cigg smokers lung treatment, whatever personal problems.

It's considered oppressive and immoral for the government to do that from our perspective.

Thus charity vs. wealth redistribution....charity is very American, very liberal, wealth redistribution via government force is not.

 

[BotanyBoy]

it's incomprehensible to many of us as well.

It's ok, lots of folks fail US History and never take a civics/government class.

 

[HisArpy]

It's not. But when our governments provide universal healthcare at a lower cost than insurance most of us can't understand how US citizens pay far more and let some people go without.

Yeah but... but... but...

Meanwhile if you want GOOD quality HC in GB you come to the US and "pay for it" yourself.

 

[oggbashan]

Yeah but... but... but...

Meanwhile if you want GOOD quality HC in GB you come to the US and "pay for it" yourself.

If the UK's National Health Service feels that US care is essential - it will pay (but usually doesn't). That is usually for extremely rare conditions. An appeal for funds from the public or charities often works if the NHS won't pay.

Good quality care exists in the UK in the public and private sectors or some people become health tourists and go to other European cities for specific health issues. For example, if appropriate, and if I as an NHS patient want - I can go to a modern hospital in Calais, France, for treatment by English-speaking staff (or I can pay by insurance or privately if I want faster treatment.)

 

[HisArpy]

If the UK's National Health Service feels that US care is essential - it will pay (but usually doesn't). That is usually for extremely rare conditions. An appeal for funds from the public or charities often works if the NHS won't pay.

Good quality care exists in the UK in the public and private sectors or some people become health tourists and go to other European cities for specific health issues. For example, if appropriate, and if I as an NHS patient want - I can go to a modern hospital in Calais, France, for treatment by English-speaking staff (or I can pay by insurance or privately if I want faster treatment.)

So, is this an admission that your UHC is "slow" and doesn't really give you "quality" HC when you need it?

You see, you've done what everyone else has done. You've confused health CARE with ACCESS to health care.

In the former, you get adequate timely treatment for your specific needs.

In the latter, you get a card with a number on it that you can use to call a doctor and then wait until he can see you.

 

[oggbashan]

So, is this an admission that your UHC is "slow" and doesn't really give you "quality" HC when you need it?

You see, you've done what everyone else has done. You've confused health CARE with ACCESS to health care.

In the former, you get adequate timely treatment for your specific needs.

In the latter, you get a card with a number on it that you can use to call a doctor and then wait until he can see you.

If you have urgent health needs you will get urgent health care from the NHS by the paramedic staff in the ambulance if necessary. At NO cost to you because the cost is covered by taxation. You don't have to worry about the cost of emergency care if you have a trauma or heart attack. There will be no invoice, no need to produce an insurance or credit card.

If your health requirement isn't urgent? Then yes, you will wait - unless you have private medical insurance that covers NHS delays or you can pay reasonable costs yourself.

The difference is that Universal Health Care is for everybody. It may not be the best and we Brits admit the NHS has real failings BUT no one is turned away because they can't pay.