Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Case for Medicare for All
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #1
The Case for Medicare for All
08-02-2019 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,325
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
I guess if you get a woodie with the mention of a requirement of a national wealth tax -- this one is for you.

Graham, I would suggest you actually engage in some commentary as opposed to 'whack a mole' link combined with a dumb ass gif posting. You might be taken a tad more seriously.

Or take that style to the Spin Room elsewhere on this site. Oops, forgot, they actually kiboshed that there as well.....
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2019 09:59 AM by tanqtonic.)
08-02-2019 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,224
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1783
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
08-02-2019 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #4
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess if you get a woodie with the mention of a requirement of a national wealth tax -- this one is for you.

Graham, I would suggest you actually engage in some commentary as opposed to 'whack a mole' link combined with a dumb ass gif posting. You might be taken a tad more seriously.

Or take that style to the Spin Room elsewhere on this site. Oops, forgot, they actually kiboshed that there as well.....

Thanks Tanq! I'm still workshopping my brand, so this feedback is really helpful.

What kind of content do you think we need more of in this forum?
08-02-2019 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,325
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:11 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess if you get a woodie with the mention of a requirement of a national wealth tax -- this one is for you.

Graham, I would suggest you actually engage in some commentary as opposed to 'whack a mole' link combined with a dumb ass gif posting. You might be taken a tad more seriously.

Or take that style to the Spin Room elsewhere on this site. Oops, forgot, they actually kiboshed that there as well.....

Thanks Tanq! I'm still workshopping my brand, so this feedback is really helpful.

What kind of content do you think we need more of in this forum?

Just saying blind link posting is not terribly constructive, helpful, nor engendering of discussion.

Take that as you may.
08-02-2019 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,325
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #6
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.
08-02-2019 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,297
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #7
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.

IF, (big if), costs are cut, they will be cut by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, and delaying surgeries until they are an emergency.

No doctor wants to study 12 years to make less than a plumber.

Net net, less doctors, dumber doctors, poorer care.

Remember everybody, the opinions of the writer of this opinion piece are just the opinions of the writer.
08-02-2019 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,224
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1783
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #8
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.

In the report where CBO supposedly said the Obamacare would reduce the deficit, they also noted that, unless significant savings could be achieved in administrative costs, the result would be either decreased access, or decreased quality, or both. It's way in the back, in the detailed methodology discussion that nobody but attorneys who work with expert witnesses would bother to read, but it's there.

My money is not on decreased administrative costs. It's on both. And that's why I'm no fan of government health care.
08-02-2019 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,224
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1783
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #9
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.
IF, (big if), costs are cut, they will be cut by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, and delaying surgeries until they are an emergency.
No doctor wants to study 12 years to make less than a plumber.
Net net, less doctors, dumber doctors, poorer care.
Remember everybody, the opinions of the writer of this opinion piece are just the opinions of the writer.

If you disagree with said writer, please provide an explanation of how it could work differently.
08-02-2019 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,297
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #10
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.
IF, (big if), costs are cut, they will be cut by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, and delaying surgeries until they are an emergency.
No doctor wants to study 12 years to make less than a plumber.
Net net, less doctors, dumber doctors, poorer care.
Remember everybody, the opinions of the writer of this opinion piece are just the opinions of the writer.

If you disagree with said writer, please provide an explanation of how it could work differently.

Ya talkin' to me?
08-02-2019 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #11
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.
08-02-2019 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,297
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

It either covered or not covered, not a decision. Your biases are showing.
08-02-2019 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,398
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #13
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?

This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.
08-02-2019 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,224
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1783
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #14
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

It's not "they decide not to cover it." It's you enter into a contract that describes what is covered and what isn't. And in a truly competitive and transparent market (which we don't have, thanks largely to government intervention), you would be able to shop multiple policies for what they covered and what they didn't.

And while it may not be attractive, you do have the debt option. With single-payer, you don't. And you have the debt-and-sue-the-insurance-company option, which often leads to they cover it after all.
08-02-2019 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #15
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?

This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.

It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.
08-02-2019 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,224
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1783
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.
This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.
Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.

Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.
08-02-2019 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #17
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.
For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.
This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.
Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.

Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.

What's the mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options? I'd imagine in a single payer program you would have the same options available if companies wanted to offer those options.
08-02-2019 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,224
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1783
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 01:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.
This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.
Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.
That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.
Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.
What's the mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options? I'd imagine in a single payer program you would have the same options available if companies wanted to offer those options.

The mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options is demand in the marketplace.

No, you would not have the same options available in single-payer because you don't have companies to offer them. Single-payer means one payer. That's why it's called single-payer.
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2019 01:18 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-02-2019 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #19
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 01:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.
Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.
That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.
Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.
What's the mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options? I'd imagine in a single payer program you would have the same options available if companies wanted to offer those options.

The mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options is demand in the marketplace.

No, you would not have the same options available in single-payer because you don't have companies to offer them. Single-payer means one payer. That's why it's called single-payer.

See bold above.

That's what led to my question. I was wondering how something like single payer differed from single payer and allowed for the private options. Would a Bismark-payer (let's just call it that to not be confusing) offer plans that would offer lower levels of coverage from a single payer program? That would drive the demand for supplemental insurance.
08-02-2019 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,325
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #20
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?

This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.

It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

One has to provide a 'cogent alternative' to "everything for everyone for free"? Seriously?

Given that, then the damn opposition hasnt provided a 'cogent alternative' to the concept of Santa Claus, either.

This is reminiscent of the bratty 4 year old yelling 'gimme' and 'mine', and there is a requirement for a 'cogent alternative' for that "grab everything on the table" mentality either.

The pushback is that the proponents of the "everything for everyone for free" option simply seem to share the same mindset of that bratty 4 year old relative to the the utter fing disregard of the obligations that that behavior requires in actual implementation.

Politically it is a beautiful solution: demand free **** for all time, then use the evil millionaires, billionaires, and corporations as the obligation sink. One gets a veritable daily double of free **** for all and a promotion of identity politics that the progressive cause views as their sustenance.
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2019 01:56 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-02-2019 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.