• 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!

Dems Confront Cartoon Pete Buttigieg After Iowa Caucus

CMPancake said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
 
Phys251 said:
Don't play the #notallsanderssupporters game with me. It's a phenomenon that's real and present. Now go read Post #6.
Click to expand...
You see something I haven't.

I did read #6

Stop acting as if you know things.
 
GreatNews2night said:
You don't see any evidence? Look at post #12 here in this very thread. "It's the DNC and the gormless centrists."
Click to expand...
Criticism of the DNC and others you disagree with isn't negative. It's healthy.
 
The Mark said:
Criticism of the DNC and others you disagree with isn't negative. It's healthy.
Click to expand...

"gormless centrists"??? LOL
Yep, very healthy criticism...
It's partially this in-fighting that made us lose in 2016, and it will make us lose in 2020 too.
 
GreatNews2night said:
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...

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:
Click to expand...

The middle class is of course getting taxed too (albeit they are paying far less than they would otherwise in premiums, co-pays, deductibles and compensation lost to health insurance premiums), and the notion that there will be mass capital flight is a largely fiction; after all, where else are the rich going to go? Even with taxes raised, almost every other first world country makes them pay more effective taxes in aggregate. Then you have data in contradiction:

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats | Inequality | The Guardian

Even the supposed exodus of France's wealthy didn't really happen due to tax reasons:

https://www.thelocal.fr/20150807/are-taxes-behind-rise-in-exodus-of-rich-french

Media outlets and thinktanks sympathetic to the woeful 'plight' of the rich and powerful will try to spin the facts to advance their agenda, but ultimately, they deal in fictions and propaganda meant to empower the strong at the expense of everyone else.


As to cost, 30% of American healthcare expense is due to administration (which is unsurprising given the massive complexity involved with payment processing due to the litany of complex plans, each with their own unique features, caveats, deductions, conditionalities, limitations, etc and so on, as well as litigation and dispute between payers and providers). Meanwhile, you're looking at some of the highest drug and medical supply prices in the world accounting for another 20% cumulatively. The remainder is mostly labour (40-45%; we also feature some of the highest medical labour expense in the world due to skyhigh malpractice insurance and expensive, non-subsidized medical education/school debt), and provider/insurer profit margins, the latter of which essentially draws value from the system to line the pockets of shareholders (by definition as it is profit). There is plenty of room to ratchet down expenses under a singlepayer system with the power of a monopolistic buyer in light of all these factors.

The problem with 'Medicare for All Who Want It' is that it does very little to tackle the rampant inefficiency of US healthcare, while essentially acting as an indirect subsidy for private insurers in that they will retain healthy patients while off-loading the worst of their risk pool to the government.

Obviously given the largesse and bloat of the healthcare industry, any responsible move to SP would require a transition period to allow all affected industries, and those employed by them, to recalibrate and adjust.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
The middle class is of course getting taxed too etc.
Click to expand...

So, if the hyper-taxation the French tried had nothing to do with capital flight, why in the hell did they cancel the program in 2014? Just as much as certain right-wing blogs, media, and think tanks will overestimate the risk and twist facts, certain left-wing blogs, media, and think tanks will underestimate the risk and twist the facts as well. The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle, but the bottom line is, 18 European countries that thought that hyper-taxing the rich to fund social programs was a good idea to get their treasury revenue up, gave up on the idea and cancelled it. You might want to think long and hard about why it happened. Could it be, by any chance, that it didn't work as intended?

Sure, taxes would substitute for what people already pay in premiums, co-pays, deductible, etc., but there are a lot of people paying little or not paying (Medicaid, VA, Medicare) who would then have to pay, and the healthier ones would have to subsidize the system a lot more than the unhealthy ones, and many of those healthier ones or beneficiaries who are poorer - VA, Medicaid - might just be unable to absorb the costs so it might either cause too many families too many problems or fall heavier on more moneyed middle classes ABOVE what they are currently paying which might revolt a lot of people and be unpalatable politically, therefore might not pass the houses of Congress.

Don't forget, if you want a paying structure but it doesn't get passed into law, there is no increased revenue from it. Just passing a watered down ACA was incredibly difficult, remember? Try to pass a dramatic increase in taxes for several American constituents with the votes of the representatives and senators who will need to earn re-election from those same constituents. Not so easy, huh?

Sure, there are lower costs to be obtained under a single payer system. That's why I said it needs to be progressive and it might take a couple of decades. It would be much more ideal to start working on those costs (tort reform, better funding for medical education and enhancement of loan forgiveness programs for essential areas like Medicine, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with makers) before a full transition, and remember, there are costs that will go up as well (current rates of reimbursement related to cost to provide services is 50% with Medicaid and 95% with Medicare; since Medicaid would disappear, and the 145% of private insurance would disappear, Medicare as the single payer would necessary need to bump that rate up, above the current reimbursement rates, otherwise the system wouldn't be solvent - say, to 125% which is 30% more than what we see today). Another HUGE bump up in costs is the sheer fact that there would be more people eligible. Not only the millions under Medicaid would now need to be reimbursed at higher rates, but the 30 million uninsured and millions more of underinsured would suddenly be elegible for services. That means, more services would occur which would need to be paid for, as well (again, there is no free lunch).

Medicare for all who want it, would indeed overburden Medicare with the sickest pool of patients, but it would function as a transition, too. Because, see, with Medicare for All, naturally that same pool with the sickest patient would become Medicare eligible as well (which would bump up current Medicare operational costs anyway and by the same numbers), so your argument is really a moot one. At least under a hybrid transitional system private insurance would help with other pools of patients (even healthier teenagers get into car crashes and drug overdoses) while with Medicare for All there would be no help from private insurance whatsoever, so your argument is kind of funny. What's worse, some help or no help?

The issue of shortages and rationing and waiting lists is an obvious one. If you don't build more ORs for example but suddenly you have 30 more million people eligible for non-urgent surgeries, there are just as many that can be done as there is no way to put two patients one on top of the other on the OR stretches to operate on them. If you don't buy more computers and hire more people and build/rent/buy more offices, you can't process claims for 330 million people instead of 8 million people using the system full speed and 33 more million using it partially. Everybody would became full speed users because there would be no other payer.

Continued below due to character limit
 
Last edited:
Continued from above due to character limit

The shortage and rationing point is a painful one at first but of course it's not like I don't want those other 30 million Americans to be assisted. I do. I'm just saying, things will be more costly to adjust than Bernie and Warren are calculating because their calculations are a projection of current Medicare costs but they won't stay the same if eligibility is extended to 330 million people, so, a LOOOOONG adjustment will be needed. For one thing you'll need more medical schools and nursing schools etc or more capacity in the current ones (which is not so easy to do as most are already maximized in terms of faculty, labs, contracts with teaching hospitals, etc., who can only absorb so many students, so you'd actually need to build and set up new schools). Do you have any idea of how must it costs to set up a medical school from scratch??? There is a reason why their tuition is so high.

Not to forget, one good reason we have lots of doctors is that they are well-compensated. Do you have any idea of how hard it is to become a doctor, and how many years it takes? 4 of college, 4 of medical school, 4 to 7 of residency training, so 12 to 15 years of hugely stressful and competitive training with night and weekend calls. You think the system has a lot of largesse due to greedy doctors who make lots of money... reduce the compensation and suddenly the profession is much less attractive and you run into problems with churning out enough doctors, a problem that exists in many countries where doctors are not as well paid as in America. If you need to be in training for 15 years but at the end you'll just make a so-so income, you may just go to other fields that will have a more immediate return of your investment in time and money.

About single payer savings, again: at first you won't have savings; you'll have hugely increased expenses and poor capacity to handle the demand, both for the administrative part, and for the actual delivery of care. Savings will come much later. Little by little (again, that's why I said several years, up to 2 decades) the system will adjust. Hopefully the two million people left without a job would be hired by Medicare itself as they already have expertise in dealing with healthcare reimbursements. But it's not so easy and will never be a complete and smooth transition. A lot of people, both workers and patients, will fall through the cracks.

Is it worth doing? Probably, but at the very least, very slowly (again, I'm talking years and decades). Then you have Elizabeth Warren saying in a debate that she will fix healthcare in the first 90 days of her term. 90 days!!!! That's a BLATANT LIE and I can't imagine that Warren whose IQ is probably quite high, doesn't know that it is a lie. She is willing to tell this lie anyway to prospective voters, which is in no way, shape, or form, any better than Trump promising that Mexico would pay for his beautiful wall.

Finally, an argument which I didn't even make at first, is that I don't have a lot of trust in a huge governmental bureaucracy that will need to take care of 330 million people. The closest example we have today, the Veterans Affairs Administration, with 1,255 healthcare facilities serving 9 million veterans, is a stinky mess (and I know the VA intimately well; believe me). That doesn't bode well for another governmental organization that will have to absorb those 9 million patients plus 321 million more.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
First it was Hillary.
Next it was Kamala.
Then it was Klobuchar.
Then Biden. Then Warren. Now Buttigieg.

Is there any Democrat running for president that you Sanders supporters won't hate? :lol:
Click to expand...

Why are the flaws of these candidates the fault of Sanders supporters? Is there anything you won’t blame Sanders supporters for?
 
Linc said:
Bernie Bros are determined to give us four more years of an ever-increasing fascist nation.
Click to expand...

You’d think the corporate-hack wing of the Democratic party would show some humility after giving us 4 years of Trump.
 
GreatNews2night said:
"gormless centrists"??? LOL
Yep, very healthy criticism...
It's partially this in-fighting that made us lose in 2016, and it will make us lose in 2020 too.
Click to expand...
It's more likely that someone who is supporting other candidates won't vote for Sanders in the general, than the other way around.
 
The Mark said:
It's more likely that someone who is supporting other candidates won't vote for Sanders in the general, than the other way around.
Click to expand...

Do you care to share with us the factual data you got in order to back this blatant speculation up?
 
The Mark said:
Is there any evidence for your position?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is. The famous article by Newsweek about stats showing that the number of people in WI, PA, and MI who voted for Trump and gave him his Electoral College victory was smaller than the number of Bernie Sanders supporters who abstained or voted for Trump in those three states because they were upset with his Dem primary defeat.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

Bernie Sanders Supporters Gave Trump his 'Margin of Victory' in 2016, Fox News Contributor Says

Now, do you care for posting the evidence for YOUR speculation, like I invited you to do, and you dodged the question?
 
GreatNews2night said:
Yes, there is. The famous article by Newsweek about stats showing that the number of people in WI, PA, and MI who voted for Trump and gave him his Electoral College victory was smaller than the number of Bernie Sanders supporters who abstained or voted for Trump in those three states because they were upset with his Dem primary defeat.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

Bernie Sanders Supporters Gave Trump his 'Margin of Victory' in 2016, Fox News Contributor Says

Now, do you care for posting the evidence for YOUR speculation, like I invited you to do, and you dodged the question?
Click to expand...

Nope.

It wasn't a speculation, it was an unsupported declaration based on nothing I can concretely point to.
 
The funny thing about this cartoon is that the only thing Bernie has to say is "The count was rigged."
Poor guy.
 
The Mark said:
You see something I haven't.

I did read #6
Click to expand...

But you obviously didn't digest it. Go back and try again--if you can.

The Mark said:
Criticism of the DNC and others you disagree with isn't negative. It's healthy.
Click to expand...

Reasonable criticism is fine. CTs and a failure to understand how party committees even work are not.
 
GreatNews2night said:
So, if the hyper-taxation the French tried had nothing to do with capital flight...
Click to expand...

First of all, 'hyper-taxing' is a politically charged misnomer.

The 2014 tax was cancelled because of political pressure leveraged by right wing publications, as well as growing right wing fiscal sentiments; it had nothing to do with tax flight.

As to the European taxes, you're probably referring to the wealth taxes in Europe that were cancelled; however, these cancellations with the one exception perhaps of Macron (who is wrestling with riots and unrest due to his blatant favourtism of the rich), were cited as having little to with capital flight, and more to do with administrative/enforcement cost and complexity vs revenue, as well as poor structuring, and in some cases, baseless belief in trickle down economics: Why Europe has mostly ditched the wealth tax over the last few decades - Business Insider

Having said that, there are good ways to enact such taxes.

Sure, taxes would substitute for what people already pay in premiums, co-pays, deductible, etc...

Don't forget, if you want a paying structure but it doesn't get passed into law, there is no increased revenue from it...
Click to expand...

Financing MFA is predicated on payroll taxes and a number of other options: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

None of these result in people who pay little or nothing per Medicaid or Medicare paying taxes they can't afford, and none are projected to cost more in taxes than people are paying out for healthcare directly or indirectly save in the case of upper echolons of income.

As to the political will to pass MFA, it is first of all nigh impossible that you'll be able to enact the legislative substance of MFA without the funding components. Second, we'll need the Senate to pass anything of merit, and if we can get that, we can definitely pass MFA with a Sanders presidency; 2020 is not 2008 or 2010 given its durable majoritarian support.

Sure, there are lower costs to be obtained under a single payer system...
Click to expand...

Cost shifting is a myth purported by hospital execs for obvious reasons: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/w...ong-about-shifting-costs-to-private-insurers/

Further, cost estimates include the cost of incorporating under and uninsured and normalization of health expenditures; the most compelling estimates I've seen are per Kenneth Thorpe and the CRFB: How Much Will Medicare for All Cost? | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Decades are too long and unwieldy to wait as a matter of basic political realism, and would make any such transition a definite political impossibility unless Dems can retain control of the federal government for far longer than is remotely probable.

Medicare for all who want it, would indeed overburden Medicare with the sickest pool of patients, but it would function as a transition, too...
Click to expand...

It's not a moot argument when we have an obvious and superior alternative in terms of a rolling expansion of Medicare in terms of depth and breadth of coverage. Aside from the political impossibility of staying the same course for decades while any actual transition to MFA would be under constant assault from monied interests, there is fundamentally very little benefit in retaining the core thing for, as such a duration that drives costs so consistently high across the board, which is the private insurance component.

Not to forget, one good reason we have lots of doctors is that they are well-compensated...
Click to expand...

Actually the US doesn't even make the top 50 countries for doctors per capita: Physicians (per 1,000 people) | Data

The main driving costs are malpractice insurance and cost of education; the latter issue Sanders explicitly means to tackle, and the former would and should probably be investigated as part of MFA.

About single payer savings, again: at first you won't have savings; you'll have hugely increased expenses and poor capacity to handle the demand, both for the administrative part, and for the actual delivery of care...
Click to expand...

Administrative savings are pretty much immediate, as are savings related to drug and supply pricing, though these will ramp up over time with a phase-in expansion of Medicare. The most concerning dimension to me is seeing to the retraining and employment of those who will be displaced as private health insurance downsizes and reorients.

Finally, an argument which I didn't even make at first, is that I don't have a lot of trust in a huge governmental bureaucracy that will need to take care of 330 million people...
Click to expand...

Yet Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are all phenomenally popular.
 
Surrealistik said:
First of all, 'hyper-taxing' is a politically charged misnomer. [... etc]
Yet Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are all phenomenally popular.
Click to expand...

Some good points. I'd like to explore your sources at some other point when I feel more like it. You are, as usually, a thoughtful and well-informed debater. There is one compelling argument that got me thinking; my idea that a transition would need years, may indeed be naive because powerful forces would sabotage it along the way as the White House and Congress switched parties as it always happens, so maybe you are right that given an opportunity to get it done, it might be best to jump on it right away and try to ram it in as much as possible, although I continue to feel nervous about it given what I said, that in matters of life and death, a precipitous transition might make a lot of stuff fall through the cracks with a lot of people getting hurt, or literally dying.

About taxing the rich, even if after examining your sources I conclude that you are right about the European examples, there is still the matter of the conservative courts (is there any other kind left after Trump stuffed all courts with a shocking number of conservative judges and justices?) jumping in and declaring the future M4A law unconstitutional. Do expect that there will be challenges. See, the European system has been like this since the early 20th century. That's what they do; they are used to it, and they didn't develop such a multi-headed monstrosity like the US health system, so they can plow ahead with much fewer legal difficulties than what we'd face here. Over here we have a large number of disparate private insurance plans, the VA, Medicaid, Medicare, fee-for-service boutique outlets, city, county, and state hospitals, federal hospitals, private not-for-profit hospitals, private for-profit hospitals, all with a complex paying mix, so to herd all these cats into a coherent unit will prove to be a much more daunting legal task than what the Europeans ever had to face, and there will be strong inertia and resistance every step of the way, not to forget misinformation, fake news, hysteria and turmoil, which will all be exploited by the right wing and by lobbies.

I was surprised to learn that we are this low in doctors per capita as compared to other developed countries... but that's actually an argument for me, not for you. I did post a link a month ago or so to an article saying that we'd experience severe physician shortages under Medicare for All. If we don't already have a large number of physicians per capita then it's even worse.

About the popularity of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, sure, but do realize that it is hard for a program to not be popular, like Medicaid, when you actually get free care with no co-pays and premiums. Who doesn't like free stuff, especially given that the low classes that benefit from Medicaid already don't pay taxes? For them, it's truly free. About Medicare, sure it's popular but that's exactly what I've been saying, that it is still relatively small (as compared to the size it would have under Medicare For All) so it performs relatively well, but if it grows into the one paying source for 330 million people, do expect problems and sputtering so it might lose the very characteristics that *currently* make the program popular. As for Social Security, it's a very different organization. Sure, it is complex and large, but it basically collects fees from pay checks and passes it on to people who qualify for retirement payments. It doesn't deal with the HUGELY more complex financing and delivery of basic and advanced medical care to 330 million people.
 
Linc said:
Time for Berniebrats to start a turd 💩 party.
Click to expand...

^ ^What Democrats said in 2016.

What Democrats have learned since 2016 = Nothing
 
Phys251 said:
I'll just say it: Not all Sanders supporters are like that. But I have no doubt that if their Dear Leader does not get the nomination which they obviously feel he is entitled to, they may throw another election. :(
Click to expand...

How Democrats threw the 2016 election = Embracing Vampire Queen Hillary
 
GreatNews2night said:
Some good points. I'd like to explore your sources at some other point when I feel more like it. You are, as usually, a thoughtful and well-informed debater. There is one compelling argument that got me thinking; my idea that a transition would need years, may indeed be naive because powerful forces would sabotage it along the way as the White House and Congress switched parties as it always happens, so maybe you are right that given an opportunity to get it done, it might be best to jump on it right away and try to ram it in as much as possible...
Click to expand...

My greater fear is the longer we continue with the existing, obviously dysfunctional system as it is, the more calcified, entrenched and unaffordable it will become, along with the possibility of being a source of eventual social instability and upheaval.

About taxing the rich, even if after examining your sources I conclude that you are right about the European examples, there is still the matter of the conservative courts (is there any other kind left after Trump stuffed all courts with a shocking number of conservative judges and justices?) jumping in and declaring the future M4A law unconstitutional. Do expect that there will be challenges. See, the European system has been like this since the early 20th century. That's what they do; they are used to it, and they didn't develop such a multi-headed monstrosity like the US health system, so they can plow ahead with much fewer legal difficulties than what we'd face here...
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be difficult, and the only way we are going to pass this (and anything else) is if we control the House, Senate and presidency. One of the primary advantages of SP is it outrights eliminates much of this needless, expensive and excessive complexity, and all but eliminates private health insurance as a toxic lobby that prioritizes their profits over the healthcare and well-being of Americans, and tirelessly works to pervert our governance to these ends. Stuffing the courts FDR style might be necessary in light of the conservative blight infesting it. It's high time we dispense with any silly and ridiculous notions of the Supreme Court being above the political fray, and recognize it as the football it clearly is and has always been.

I was surprised to learn that we are this low in doctors per capita as compared to other developed countries... but that's actually an argument for me, not for you. I did post a link a month ago or so to an article saying that we'd experience severe physician shortages under Medicare for All. If we don't already have a large number of physicians per capita then it's even worse.
Click to expand...

That we're doing so poorly per this metric speaks to the critical need to minimize and eliminate the cost barriers to medical education and accreditation, and entice doctors from abroad to live and work here; clearly pay is not the problem, so much as the other obstacles.

About the popularity of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, sure, but do realize that it is hard for a program to not be popular, like Medicaid, when you actually get free care with no co-pays and premiums. Who doesn't like free stuff, especially given that the low classes that benefit from Medicaid already don't pay taxes? For them, it's truly free. About Medicare, sure it's popular but that's exactly what I've been saying, that it is still relatively small (as compared to the size it would have under Medicare For All) so it performs relatively well, but if it grows into the one paying source for 330 million people, do expect problems and sputtering so it might lose the very characteristics that *currently* make the program popular. As for Social Security, it's a very different organization. Sure, it is complex and large, but it basically collects fees from pay checks and passes it on to people who qualify for retirement payments. It doesn't deal with the HUGELY more complex financing and delivery of basic and advanced medical care to 330 million people.
Click to expand...

Well I mean, it's not free; they've paid into it all their lives. Cumulatively Medicaid and Medicare are rather large indeed.

Second, one of the benefits of phasing in the expansion of Medicaid over a period of years is to get the appropriate infrastructure and methodologies in place to enable Medicare to properly administer the increased number of enrolled, and to see what works and what doesn't in real time and in the context of real conditions.
 
Linc said:
There’s no ‘may’ to these assholes throwing another election.

These stupid mother ****ers love getting played and filleted by trumputins.
Click to expand...

2016 Democrats = Played by Hillary, still mad at Bernie

:shrug:
 
GreatNews2night said:
Applaud. Mr Person is one of the best DP posters. Very lucid and articulate. Well done.

I loved this phrase: "you can't insult people or CT your way to more support for Bernie"

That's exactly what they are doing. Just today another Bernie fan insulted me, and what he called "moderate gibberish." And another one said they don't need moderates to win. A third one said the same a couple of days ago. Big mistake. Oh, edit: I see a fourth one doing it here.

Arrogance alienates potential supports. Arrogance won't pay off. It will only help Trump.
Click to expand...

Trump's going to win anyway - we both agree on this.

So Democrats can:

A) Continue alienating people by embracing reptiles like Wall Street Pete & Lyin' Lizzie

B) At least PRETEND that a decent candidate like Crazy 2020 Bernie is someone whose values they support

The problem?

Liberals are WILDLY conservative.

They don't want Bernie because he's a decent social democrat.

Liberals who oppose Bernie should just vote for Trump - it's more honest.

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom