• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders rolls out Medicare-for-All plan

ROFLMAO

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956
Senate vote Yay/Nay
Rep 27/12
Dem 14/25

House
Rep 188/4
Dem 200/15

You care to revise and extend your remark?

Absolutely no revision necessary, you may have noticed I said conservatives and never mentioned a party. Everyone knows (or at least should) that the parties switched ideologies throughout the 50s and 60s.
 
It shouldn't be a question of progress but of being beneficial to Americans. This partisan nonsense is really getting old.

Exactly my point. I did not say anything about a party, very non partisan comment...
 
We have the most expensive healthcare system per capita in the world. Literally every single UHC country is paying less than we're paying, by a dramatic amount, and still get better results, so asking how we'd pay for it is nonsensical.

It's a fallacy to believe that simply switching to single-payer will result in the U.S. paying what other countries do. Single-payer would have to grapple with the cost structure that currently exists in our health care system, a reality with which its advocates need to start engaging. A single-payer entity would pay more or less what we currently do.
 
It's a fallacy to believe that simply switching to single-payer will result in the U.S. paying what other countries do. Single-payer would have to grapple with the cost structure that currently exists in our health care system, a reality with which its advocates need to start engaging. A single-payer entity would pay more or less what we currently do.

A single payer BY DEFINITION would pay less. Medicare currently pays less
 
A single payer BY DEFINITION would pay less. Medicare currently pays less

Single-payer is defined by the number of payers (hence the name), not the level of payment.

And Medicare pays a lot more than payers in most other countries.
 
Single-payer is defined by the number of payers (hence the name), not the level of payment.

And Medicare pays a lot more than payers in most other countries.

But it pays a lot less that most insurance in the US. Costs will drop dramatically....as will profits
 
Our current system is killing americans by the thousand. Harvard medical school did a study that found that lack of insurance results in 40,000 deaths a year. People are being crushed by medical debt. People choose between medicine and food. Children go without basic healthcare. This is a national shame. Single payer is coming. And it is long over due. Freedom to die is no freedom at all

Our current system ?? Our current system includes exponential hikes in premiums, ans deductibles that are so high having health insurance is pointless

The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is over 6000 dolllars, and over 10,000 dollars for a family. If premiums are what it cost to have insurance, dedictibles are what it cost to use that insurance

Our current plan also includes hundreds of millions of dollars wasted to set up State exchanges that never worked. Oregon blew through 300 million alone srtting up a exchange that never worked

Our current plan left over 33 percent of American Counties with only one insurer on their exchanges. It also led to failed co-ops, bankrupted risk corridors, price controls and a cost shifting mechanism that looks like it was concieved by elementary children.

So let me get this straight. You want the same people, politicians and bureacrats who are responsible for the cluster **** that is ObamaCare running a Single payer plan.

You want to give a Govt that had proven themselves to be incompetent more power and authority over the lives of Americans ?

Lol ! What the hell man ?
 
Our current system ?? Our current system includes exponential hikes in premiums, ans deductibles that are so high having health insurance is pointless

The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is over 6000 dolllars, and over 10,000 dollars for a family. If premiums are what it cost to have insurance, dedictibles are what it cost to use that insurance

Our current plan also includes hundreds of millions of dollars wasted to set up State exchanges that never worked. Oregon blew through 300 million alone srtting up a exchange that never worked

Our current plan left over 33 percent of American Counties with only one insurer on their exchanges. It also led to failed co-ops, bankrupted risk corridors, price controls and a cost shifting mechanism that looks like it was concieved by elementary children.

So let me get this straight. You want the same people, politicians and bureacrats who are responsible for the cluster **** that is ObamaCare running a Single payer plan.

You want to give a Govt that had proven themselves to be incompetent more power and authority over the lives of Americans ?

Lol ! What the hell man ?

Yes. I want the same people that run medicare which is a great program to expand that great program to all americans. Medicare is great
 
It's a fallacy to believe that simply switching to single-payer will result in the U.S. paying what other countries do. Single-payer would have to grapple with the cost structure that currently exists in our health care system, a reality with which its advocates need to start engaging. A single-payer entity would pay more or less what we currently do.

They may pay the same providers but with far less overhead required to collect premiums (if added to existing tax bills). Every middle man that you eliminate from a system reduces the cost of the system. You obviously can't eliminate paying the providers but they too would have less overhead, thus could lower their fees, if they dealt with only one paying customer (single payer) no matter how many different patients that they served. Instead of producing a unique billing document (in many formats) for each patient they simply produce a single document with a line (or two) for each patient seen during the billing period.

If medical bill looked like this (Date, patient ID, care provided):

091817 SSN# SVC#1, SVC#24, SVC#46, SVC#198.

It would save considerable money and even more if the process was paperless and each patient had a medical "debit card".
 
It's a fallacy to believe that simply switching to single-payer will result in the U.S. paying what other countries do. Single-payer would have to grapple with the cost structure that currently exists in our health care system, a reality with which its advocates need to start engaging. A single-payer entity would pay more or less what we currently do.


New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
• Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
• Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
• Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
• Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
• Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally - The Commonwealth Fund
 
Last edited:
Our current system is a national shame

Yes, it is a shame that when government meddles, prices and costs increase, as we have seen with ObamaCare, to the point where people can't afford it.

Given this, doubling down on government run single payer doesn't seem to make sense.

What might be a start would be to make the pricing and costs transparent, give the consumer the information with which to do comparison shopping, and let the competitive market pressure push the pricing and costs down. But that's not what the insurance companies want, and I think have been successful in hiding that information from the consumer.
 
A single payer BY DEFINITION would pay less. Medicare currently pays less

Medicare pays less than what? It pays what US providers have agreed to pay them not what France pays or what Canada pays. The only thing that single payer by definition does is to have a single place and manner of billing for providers, and a single place for patients to pay premiums.
 
But it pays a lot less that most insurance in the US. Costs will drop dramatically....as will profits

"Costs" and "payment" are not the same thing. Ideally payment should cover costs and leave a little left over for wage increases, and investment in infrastructure and research, and so on. Slashing payment doesn't necessarily do anything to costs in the short run. If I told you the GOP was going to slash funding for Medicaid, would your reaction be "great, they're bringing costs down?" Or would you have concerns about patient care and access being compromised to help artificially balance a payer's (in this case, the federal government's) books?

Regardless, even if you re-priced everything to Medicare rates, you get some savings from current commercial payments but you give some of it back by increasing reimbursement currently flowing through Medicaid. Back-of-the-envelop, you might slice ~$350 billion off the formerly commercial piece but you'd be increasing spending by ~$200 billion on the formerly Medicaid piece. So maybe you'd be able to push national health spending down to just over $3 trillion. That's a little bit lower than current but it's still an American level of health spending. The single-payer entity here would be paying a lot more here than other nations do.

(Note that this is before accounting for the effects of giving everyone in the country coverage that's more generous than anyone has today--that would push spending back up.)
 
BTW I did not mean merit good. I meant public good, just as I said. As for the rest? I really didn't see much merit in answering your preconception, as you won't rethink anyway. Your aside about drugs being monopoly priced and arguing on that basis just shows you have not walked this walk. But I am not interested in listening to your voodoo. So let's drop it here.

You just prefer to throw out buzz words and can't defend them against a serious inquiry. Your dismissal of merit versus public good is a good example. Under the traditional definition, healthcare cannot be a "public good" because it doesn't meet the definition. For starters, me getting that operation at noon tomorrow means no one else can, so the supply of healthcare is VERY restricted, which is not true of "public goods." Health care fails the definition of a "public good" in several OTHER ways as well, so when you throw out "public good" and healthcare, you do NOT mean the ordinary definition but something else you won't or cannot explain.

Health care is, however, a classic example of a merit good, and your complaints about healthcare as merit good - i.e. "that therefore the state should pay part of the costs. That would call for a rudimentary coverage paid for by government. This capped amount of treatment must be organized" certainly apply to merit goods and whatever concept of "public goods" you're using. But instead of defending the point and the observation that of course society can and DOES consider healthcare a "public good" or "merit good" - 100% of them - you run away.

Typical...
 
Absolutely no revision necessary, you may have noticed I said conservatives and never mentioned a party. Everyone knows (or at least should) that the parties switched ideologies throughout the 50s and 60s.

Thats the manuactured narrative thats been spread by the party thats responsible for introducing Jim Crowe to the world

But its easy to debunk. First, FDR and Woodrow Wilson both carried all 11 States of the old Confederacy all 6 times they ran and FDR named Jim Byrens to the Supreme Court.

He's known for fillibustering and killing anti-lynching legislation. Both Presidents were Liberal and both seemingly racist

In 1956, the " Dixie Manifesto " was signed by 19 Senators, and 80 House members, all Democrats.

The idea that Nixon, who supported the 1964, 1965 and 1968 Civil rights act and who increased the civil rights enforment budget by 800 percent and who did more to de-segregate schools than all of his Democrat predecessors courted Southen Racist is a huge myth pushed by the Left

The Democrats have done a piss poor job of representing the interest of the Black population especially in Cities like Detroit and Fynt and Chicago.
Its almost like they only pander to Blacks for their votes
 
They may pay the same providers but with far less overhead required to collect premiums (if added to existing tax bills).

The net cost of private insurance (i.e., the amount collected in premiums that didn't go directly to patient care but instead was used to pay for administration, taxes, reserves, etc) in 2015 was $210.1 billion. That number includes not just people in commercial plans but those Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP enrollees in private plans. So, the large majority of insured people. Even if you eliminated that entire piece of the $3 trillion pie--which, realistically, you can't in its entirety--we're still well above the rest of the world.

Every middle man that you eliminate from a system reduces the cost of the system. You obviously can't eliminate paying the providers but they too would have less overhead, thus could lower their fees, if they dealt with only one paying customer (single payer) no matter how many different patients that they served. Instead of
producing a unique billing document (in many formats) for each patient they simply produce a single document with a line (or two) for each patient seen during the billing period.

Medicare's billing forms are already what's universally used in our system. But yes we could consolidate the actual processing of claims even while keeping a multi-payer system, handing it all over to the same companies that process Medicare claims today. Peter Orszag and Tim Ferris had a column in Bloomberg suggesting that administrative step last year: Medicare Paperwork for All.

There are ways to achieve administrative savings, obviously. But at the end of the day we pay a lot for care.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today.

That's true! And quite well-known.
 
Yes. I want the same people that run medicare which is a great program to expand that great program to all americans. Medicare is great

Good thing you represent a fringe minority of the American population then.

The Democrats have been getting their clocks cleaned in local, state and Federal elections for the last 8 years and a big part of why is ObamaCare.

Under ObamaCare the Democrats basically took over the Health insurance industry and tried to centrally plan and run a huge part of our economy

They applied their own arbitrary rules and threw out free market fundamentals and it ended in a disaster and whats worse is Obama, his HHS Secretry, Jonathon Gruber and Eziekel Emannual defended it right up until he left office.

That pissed quite a bit of people off
 
Our current system ?? Our current system includes exponential hikes in premiums, ans deductibles that are so high having health insurance is pointless

The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is over 6000 dolllars, and over 10,000 dollars for a family. If premiums are what it cost to have insurance, dedictibles are what it cost to use that insurance

Our current plan also includes hundreds of millions of dollars wasted to set up State exchanges that never worked. Oregon blew through 300 million alone srtting up a exchange that never worked

Our current plan left over 33 percent of American Counties with only one insurer on their exchanges. It also led to failed co-ops, bankrupted risk corridors, price controls and a cost shifting mechanism that looks like it was concieved by elementary children.

You're making as strong a case for single-payer as any lefty in this thread.

If you don't like premiums, deductibles, or markets, there's only one approach that's going to work for you. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed!
 
You just prefer to throw out buzz words and can't defend them against a serious inquiry. Your dismissal of merit versus public good is a good example. Under the traditional definition, healthcare cannot be a "public good" because it doesn't meet the definition. For starters, me getting that operation at noon tomorrow means no one else can, so the supply of healthcare is VERY restricted, which is not true of "public goods." Health care fails the definition of a "public good" in several OTHER ways as well, so when you throw out "public good" and healthcare, you do NOT mean the ordinary definition but something else you won't or cannot explain.

Health care is, however, a classic example of a merit good, and your complaints about healthcare as merit good - i.e. "that therefore the state should pay part of the costs. That would call for a rudimentary coverage paid for by government. This capped amount of treatment must be organized" certainly apply to merit goods and whatever concept of "public goods" you're using. But instead of defending the point and the observation that of course society can and DOES consider healthcare a "public good" or "merit good" - 100% of them - you run away.

Typical...

But, your getting the operation can have non exclusive consequences. It is these that mean that there is a public goods dimension. The merit good aspect that might be paid for government would be the emergency room case. Personally, I would argue against government paying for that, though. That is part of the reason I said above that the US system of universal coverage via that program was not good.
 
We have the most expensive healthcare system per capita in the world. Literally every single UHC country is paying less than we're paying, by a dramatic amount, and still get better results, so asking how we'd pay for it is nonsensical.

Sorry, but Vermont and California have pretty much debunked the arguments that Single payer in the US would be cheaper and that how we pay for it is " nonsensical ".

According to MITs Jonathon Gruber and Harvards William Hsiao, who were borh payed 400k to run the numbers for Vermonts single payer initiative, " Green Mountain Care " would wind up saving the State over a Billion dollars over 10 years

It was not only feasible, it was cheaper and would provide better care, so why wasnt VTs law implemented ?

Because it wasnt cheaper at all, the tax increases necessary were in excess of 156 percent. Vermont would have to come up with a additional 1.9 Billion in annual revenue to pay for it.
Their current total revenue is only 1.5 billion

VTs Governor was forced to abandon it and Gruber and Hsiao were just a couple of Left wing hacks who pencil whipped the numbers.

Then there's the economic consequences of the massive tax rate increases that it would take to fund Single payer in the US.

These consequences are lost on the average Liberal because they think tax hikes are " progeessive " and should be based solely on some obscure definition of fairness.

But the needed tax hikes are one of the primary reasons VT abandoned their singlepayer law.
Even ther Liberal Governor at the time had to concede they would have destroyed the States economy, driving off bussinesses, corporations and investment capital.

As for California, where are they going to come up with a extra 400 billion dollars to pay for their singlepayer law ?

They cant even balance their budget and have the highest level of unfunded pension liabilities in the US
 
I don't think Bernie has ever shied from the consequence of or need for increased taxes.

Second, majority of opinion is in favour of SP, and the trajectory of public opinion is likewise in its favour; support for SP is only continuing to grow and fortify.

Third, yes, hybrid and public option systems are also viable; I wouldn't disparage them as a possibility or consider their rollout/support automatic proof of corporate shilling, but I think they're right to be regarded with suspicion, particularly in a place like the States where you have powerful special interest groups and lobbies that would almost certainly have or create a lot of wiggle room within such systems to milk and exploit them for their benefit.

But realistic policy must account for powerful special interest groups. It's not a small thing to effectively and overnight socialize behemoth public companies like the big healthcare insurance companies. They will spend VAST resources to kill a real "single payer" scheme because if it comes about, a $200B company like Unitedhealth goes to near zero. And that's just ONE company. Start talking about a policy that will wipe out a half $trillion in shareholder wealth, and you've got a serious, serious, serious problem that you better damn well address up front and very clearly or no one should take the policy seriously.
Speaking of, the biggest obstacle to SP and meaningful healthcare reform overall is most definitely corporations and their hacks/shills, and the underlying issue of money in politics and professional lobbying, and though extremely potent and considerable obstacles, I don't think they're in any way indicative of the sheer impossibility of SP.

Bottom line is if you're going to write down Unitedhealth to zero, and you're a Senator, you will know that the industry will put the biggest bullseye on your back that's ever existed in politics. So those you want to vote yes better see overwhelming and unconditional public support and the policy better have the overwhelming and bipartisan support in Congress. It's just reality. We want "single payer" to drive down costs, save $100s of billions in costs. Well, that means some LOTS of people will LOSE $100s of billions in revenue, and pretending that we can with force of will and 60 votes in the Senate overcome that is naive IMO. It's why I don't see single payer as a realistic possibility at least for a decade or two....

Lastly, anyone who thinks that the Medicare for All Bill as it exists is intended to pass is kidding themselves, willfully or otherwise; it's pretty obviously an attempt to generate political momentum and normalize the idea of SP (which it is largely succeeding at). Of course it's not going to see implementation now when every chamber of governance is domineered by the Republicans.

And I don't mind people who believe in SP pushing single payer. What I think is stupid as hell is targeting democrats who recognize just some of the MASSIVE structural and political problems with implementing SP and don't sign on and agree to put their neck on a chopping block in a red or purple state. Fact is those who don't believe SP will happen are almost surely on the right side of the reality and politics of healthcare POSSIBILITIES in the country, and shouldn't be punished for it.
 
You're making as strong a case for single-payer as any lefty in this thread.

If you don't like premiums, deductibles, or markets, there's only one approach that's going to work for you. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed!

I have ? Thats wierd, because Ive repeatedly asked why in the hell would anyone want to give more power and authority to the people who brought us ObamaCare ?

And I didnt have a problem with premiums and deductibles prior to the ACA
 
Yes, it is a shame that when government meddles, prices and costs increase, as we have seen with ObamaCare, to the point where people can't afford it.

Given this, doubling down on government run single payer doesn't seem to make sense.

What might be a start would be to make the pricing and costs transparent, give the consumer the information with which to do comparison shopping, and let the competitive market pressure push the pricing and costs down. But that's not what the insurance companies want, and I think have been successful in hiding that information from the consumer.

THIS QUESTION IS NOT INVISIBLE

What country in the world uses the model you suggest successfully?
 
Medicare pays less than what? It pays what US providers have agreed to pay them not what France pays or what Canada pays. The only thing that single payer by definition does is to have a single place and manner of billing for providers, and a single place for patients to pay premiums.

It pays less than private insurance....but you knew that
 
Back
Top Bottom