- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 8,761
- Reaction score
- 3,312
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, I do believe Americans are owed the right to live without dying from a lack of Healthcare. Do Moderates not feel the same way?
Oh, I certainly do. I disagree with Bernie on how we can go about it, though, in terms of a feasible plan that we can afford, and one with little unintended consequences. I'd prefer, for now, expansion of Medicaid, reinforcement of the ACA, and a basic public option in the exchanges, but, for now, preserving private insurance for those who want it or have decent plans. I do want a progressive evolution until one day we get to universal healthcare (hopefully a hybrid system like France's), but I know that it will take several years or even a couple of decades to get there without major disruptions that will put the system through dangerous turmoil.
The reasons for this are many. Medicare currently pays 95% of the cost to deliver care while private insurance pays 145%. Medicare is only viable for doctors and regional hospitals because private insurance picks up the slack and keeps the system profitable enough for survival. Medicare serves actively, exclusively, and intensively about 8 million beneficiaries, out of 44 million eligible seniors that use the system to a certain degree and not exclusively. If you suddenly make Medicare exclusively take care of 330 million people and you abolish private insurance, you run into a large number of unintended consequences. First of all, you drive regional hospitals to bankruptcy - no system can function by earning only 95% of the cost to do business. Second, you get a bunch of doctors who were pre-retired but still active to quit. Third, you'd need to multiply by at least 7 times the infrastructure, to go from 44 million to 330 million, not to forget you'd have to multiply it by 41 times if you go from 8 million to 330 million. So, you'll need 7 to 41 times more computers, personnel, buildings, offices, printers, supplies, etc., etc., etc., just to process this massive influx of newly eligible people and the services they need and collect. 4th, you can't provide all the services you were providing to 8 million people, to now, 330 million. There aren't enough doctors even if they don't quit. There aren't enough hospital beds and machinery. So, with the bureaucratic part in total disarray (remember, you need more computers, more personnel, more offices, etc.) and the shortage of doctors and infrastructure, you run into delays, waiting lists, shortage, and rationing. Being healthcare often a matter of life and death, a lot of people will simply perish in the ensuing chaos and turmoil. Two million people currently working for health insurance plans are suddenly jobless. With the system sputtering all over the place, and being responsible for 18% of America's GDP to the tune of 3.3 trillion, this then creates a huge hit on the GDP and an economic recession. And so on and so forth.
Get it now?
And then, how do you pay for it? Tax the rich, says Sanders. Sure, sure. Except that the rich then fly away, renounce US citizenship, and move their domicile to tax havens. 18 European countries tried this. All 18 got their treasury revenue DECREASED due to capital flight. Oops, it backfired. They had to cancel the taxes, like France did in 2014. It doesn't work. Some scholars even say that it is unconstitutional to tax one class for the specific purpose of funding one program, under the constitutional equality under the law. You know that courts these days are packed with conservative justices and judges. It wouldn't pass.
Then the program would be under threat of bankruptcy unless... massive taxes got imposed on the middle class that can't flee the country. Oops... healthcare then is not so free after all, huh?
Like Trump said, who would know that healthcare was so complicated? :lol: