• 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!

Key Design Components and Considerations for Establishing a Single-Payer Health Care System

sangha said:
The M4A Bill's cover prescription drugs.

Your lies are worthless
Click to expand...

Cool.. please provide the link to the bill where the coverage is at zero cost to the patient for drug coverage and that there is no copays or other out of pocket costs.

Oh.. and please provide where all chemo drugs for leukemia are listed on the formulary as covered drugs.

Look.. I won't hold my breath.. because I have asked you repeatedly for you to provide ANY.. evidence or documentation that backs up your assertions on basically anything in this discussion.. and well..you haven't provided a thing.

In fact.. you have demonstrated a tremendous lack of understanding of our current medical system etc.

Not to mention economics.. you seem to think that decreasing GDP.. by 4-6%.. doesn't mean that GDP actually decreases. Like somehow the revenue is still there.. :doh

But.. don't worry.. I still see value in your posts. I mean.. your display of ignorance.. really helps educate others that refuse to be so obtuse.

And its okay.. I don't report your attacks and accusations of lying.. because well... you don't know what truth is in the first place.

According to your perception.. when someone poses facts that don't agree with you.. its a lie.
 
jaeger19 said:
Cool.. please provide the link to the bill where the coverage is at zero cost to the patient for drug coverage and that there is no copays or other out of pocket costs.

Oh.. and please provide where all chemo drugs for leukemia are listed on the formulary as covered drugs.

Look.. I won't hold my breath.. because I have asked you repeatedly for you to provide ANY.. evidence or documentation that backs up your assertions on basically anything in this discussion.. and well..you haven't provided a thing.

In fact.. you have demonstrated a tremendous lack of understanding of our current medical system etc.

Not to mention economics.. you seem to think that decreasing GDP.. by 4-6%.. doesn't mean that GDP actually decreases. Like somehow the revenue is still there.. :doh

But.. don't worry.. I still see value in your posts. I mean.. your display of ignorance.. really helps educate others that refuse to be so obtuse.

And its okay.. I don't report your attacks and accusations of lying.. because well... you don't know what truth is in the first place.

According to your perception.. when someone poses facts that don't agree with you.. its a lie.
Click to expand...
I am not going to cure your ignorance.

I will mock it.

Maybe you should learn how to Google
 
jaeger19 said:
Depends on your version of Medicare for ALL.
Click to expand...
Correct.

And?

Medical debt and medical bankruptcies are dramatically lower in *checks notes* every other nation on the planet.

Cost is the dumbest possible argument you can make against UHC because it defies every single data point that exists.
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Not to mention economics.. you seem to think that decreasing GDP.. by 4-6%.. doesn't mean that GDP actually decreases. Like somehow the revenue is still there.. :doh
Click to expand...

How do you think M4A will decrease GDP?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Correct.

And?

Medical debt and medical bankruptcies are dramatically lower in *checks notes* every other nation on the planet.

Cost is the dumbest possible argument you can make against UHC because it defies every single data point that exists.
Click to expand...

How we pay for it isn’t just a matter of “data points,” there is a very real possibility that the political will to pass the tax increases that would be necessary to fully fund it doesn’t exist.
 
sangha said:
I am not going to cure your ignorance.

I will mock it.

Maybe you should learn how to Google
Click to expand...

Your failure is obvious for all to see.

The only one being mocked here.. is you.
 
Deuce said:
Correct.

And?

Medical debt and medical bankruptcies are dramatically lower in *checks notes* every other nation on the planet.

Cost is the dumbest possible argument you can make against UHC because it defies every single data point that exists.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not quite true. Its hard to compare countries because their "medical bankruptcy laws".. are quite different as is their currency. . However, when Canada and America where compared when they had similar economic times and similar bankruptcy laws.. the bankruptcy rate was similar despite the fact that Canada has single payer.

Unlike the United States, Canada has a universal, government-run health insurance system. Following the logic of Himmelstein and colleagues, we should therefore expect to observe a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States.

Yet the evidence shows that in the only comparable years, personal bankruptcy rates were actually higher in Canada. Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.20 percent in the United States during 2006 and 0.27 percent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.30 percent in both 2006 and 2007. The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

This is important, because the 2005 reforms produced U.S. legal standards for bankruptcy filing that are now very similar to Canada’s. Before 2005 it was much easier to file for bankruptcy in the United States, making cross-border comparisons prior to the legal changes meaningless. Further, in 2008 the United States was harmed by massive systemic home mortgage defaults that did not occur in Canada because of differences in mortgage lending practices. U.S. mortgage defaults would have been correlated with increased bankruptcy rates. Therefore, Canada-U.S. comparisons in 2008 are not valid because the data is skewed by other policy differences unrelated to health insurance.

Aside from universal single-payer health insurance, there are few other significant health, social, or legal policy differences between the two countries that could be causally linked to bankruptcy rates. Both countries have employment insurance programs that provide income support in the event of job loss. In fact, unemployment occurs with roughly similar frequency among Canadians and Americans. National unemployment rates in 2007 were 5.3 percent in Canada versus 4.6 percent in the United States.
Indeed, if we define medical bankruptcies the way Himmelstein and colleagues did for their study in the United States, we find such bankruptcies also occur in Canada. Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

There is no objective evidence to indicate that a government-run health care system in the United States will reduce personal bankruptcies.
Click to expand...

The Medical Bankruptcy Myth | Fraser Institute
 
Deuce said:
How do you think M4A will decrease GDP?
Click to expand...

that pretty obvious. About 18% of our GDP is healthcare spending. If you decrease that as Bernie claims he is going to do..

Its going to reduce our GDP. Healthcare is not being outsourced in America. Its not really be sent overseas. Its pretty hard to do automate it. Currently the healthcare industry is a primary source of jobs in America.

Due to the inexorable aging of the country—and equally unstoppable growth in medical spending—it was long obvious that health-care jobs would slowly take up more and more of the economy. But in the last quarter, for the first time in history, health care has surpassed manufacturing and retail, the most significant job engines of the 20th century, to become the largest source of jobs in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Health Care Just Became the U.S.'s Largest Employer - The Atlantic


Healthcare is uniquely American.. and its growing because of demand. The aging of the baby boomers is creating huge demand. Now.. If medicare for all.. is going to get the savings.. that its being touted (compared to all those other countries)...that means that healthcare expenditure has to be reduced. And where does that come from?

Well..its going to come from American healthcare workers... (since most countries pay less for their doctors, nurses.. and so on).
Its going to come from fewer healthcare workers.
Fewer hospitals
Fewer medical services (most countries gain efficiency by consolidating and reducing access to hospital beds, MRI etc.. its in part why the greater wait times).

It means fewer hospital and provider constructions..



There is no free lunch here. If you reduce the spending on healthcare..you are going to be reducing wages, reducing employment. reducing construction etc.. in an industry that can't outsource to india.. that is made up of tons of non profits no less.

Sangha here is going to say... "well we can spend on..."..but it doesn't work that way.. because you reduction is in wages, in hiring, in construction that's done in the US.

IF we were to follow Sangha's logic.. that reducing costs.. just means we can spend it somewhere else... well then.. according to him.. since the US has a minimum wage and spends more on wages than other countries.. we should get rid of minimum wage and there will be no effect on the economy.

Well.. that's just not true. And the same with healthcare.
 
For those able and willing to stream C-Span radio during the workday, the Budget Committee hearing discussing the issues raised in this CBO primer is happening right now.
 
It's a bait and switch argument. The study being criticised focused on Medical spending as contributing to bankruptcy. The refutation doesn't focus on medical spending at all, it just compares personal bankruptcy in Canada and the US during a specific time period. It's apples and oranges.
 
manofknowledge said:
It's a bait and switch argument. The study being criticised focused on Medical spending as contributing to bankruptcy. The refutation doesn't focus on medical spending at all, it just compares personal bankruptcy in Canada and the US during a specific time period. It's apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Not at all.. Its not apples to oranges.. as the article explained.

IF the economies are similar.. (which they were).. AND the bankruptcy laws were similar (which they were)…

Then the only difference would be that Canada had single payer and universal healthcare..... while the US did not.

IF having single payer and universal healthcare was a significant reducer of bankruptcy... then Canada should have a significantly lower bankruptcy rate than the US.

WHICH IT DID NOT. Despite having a single payer and UHC.

And the fact that it did NOT focus on medical spending actually makes it MORE powerful.

Because it includes bankruptcies where medical debt might have been present.. but not listed as the primary factor in the bankruptcy.

this is important.. because when Himmelstein et all.. responded to the critique of their paper where they claimed so many went bankrupt because of medical debt in the US... (the critique being that actual medical debt was a very very small part of actual debt, even when the person claimed medical reasons for bankruptcy)..
Himmelstein et all claimed (paraphrasing here) " well.. yes medical debt was low BUT.. it was the MEDICAL debt that pushed them to bankruptcy".

The facts around Canada vs the US show that this was not the case. Single payer in Canada did NOT lower the chance of bankruptcy.


Which makes sense.. because the real cause of bankruptcy when a person has medical problems.. is not the debt that's incurred.. its really the LOSS OF INCOME..when one is too sick to work or work enough. Or a person has to take time off from work to care for a loved one that's sick.
 
Yeah, the only difference between Canada's economy and ours is that Canada has single payer
 
jaeger19 said:
Not at all.. Its not apples to oranges.. as the article explained.

IF the economies are similar.. (which they were).. AND the bankruptcy laws were similar (which they were)…

Then the only difference would be that Canada had single payer and universal healthcare..... while the US did not.

IF having single payer and universal healthcare was a significant reducer of bankruptcy... then Canada should have a significantly lower bankruptcy rate than the US.

WHICH IT DID NOT. Despite having a single payer and UHC.

And the fact that it did NOT focus on medical spending actually makes it MORE powerful.

Because it includes bankruptcies where medical debt might have been present.. but not listed as the primary factor in the bankruptcy.

this is important.. because when Himmelstein et all.. responded to the critique of their paper where they claimed so many went bankrupt because of medical debt in the US... (the critique being that actual medical debt was a very very small part of actual debt, even when the person claimed medical reasons for bankruptcy)..
Himmelstein et all claimed (paraphrasing here) " well.. yes medical debt was low BUT.. it was the MEDICAL debt that pushed them to bankruptcy".

The facts around Canada vs the US show that this was not the case. Single payer in Canada did NOT lower the chance of bankruptcy.


Which makes sense.. because the real cause of bankruptcy when a person has medical problems.. is not the debt that's incurred.. its really the LOSS OF INCOME..when one is too sick to work or work enough. Or a person has to take time off from work to care for a loved one that's sick.
Click to expand...

The difference between Canada and US bankruptcies is not just health care. For example Canada was experiencing major attack of pine beetles which caused major job losses in th Canadian lumber industry. When people lose their jobs they often go bankrupt. That is just one example of differences in making such a generalized comparison. It's not valid.
 
sangha said:
Yeah, the only difference between Canada's economy and ours is that Canada has single payer
Click to expand...

Actually yes.. that's what the studied showed.. that it was comparing apples to apples during that time.

Of course. you are just sniping from the sidelines.. because we know that you would have NO problem declaring... "look at the savings Canada, Britain.. etc get from their single payer"... as if their healthcare costs/ demographics are the same... :lol:
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually yes.. that's what the studied showed.. that it was comparing apples to apples during that time.

Of course. you are just sniping from the sidelines.. because we know that you would have NO problem declaring... "look at the savings Canada, Britain.. etc get from their single payer"... as if their healthcare costs/ demographics are the same... [emoji38]
Click to expand...
The study showed that the only difference between Canada's economy and ours is that Canada has single payer?

Why do you tell such obvious lies?
 
manofknowledge said:
The difference between Canada and US bankruptcies is not just health care. For example Canada was experiencing major attack of pine beetles which caused major job losses in th Canadian lumber industry. When people lose their jobs they often go bankrupt. That is just one example of differences in making such a generalized comparison. It's not valid.
Click to expand...

Sure its valid. The study controlled for such economic issues. They simply could not control for the size of the economic meltdown in the US housing market in later years. . Nope..its valid. You just don't like the outcome.

I am sure that if the study found that Canada.. had much less bankruptcy.. you would be crowing about how wonderful single payer is. And how its going to stop the bankruptcy in the US.. just like in Canada.

And the article I linked to.. showed other facts.... like the fact that even when medical reasons are listed in US bankruptcy... actual medical debt is a very small portion of the debt the person had. Other consumer debt was far and away a bigger factor.

Sorry but the evidence is clear. Medical bankruptcy due to medical bills is largely a myth. The real issue in medical issues is the loss of income that occurs when someone is sick. Either loss of income from the sick person not working.. or because of loss of income from caregivers.
 
sangha said:
The study showed that the only difference between Canada's economy and ours is that Canada has single payer?

Why do you tell such obvious lies?
Click to expand...

I don't lie. It compared apples to apples by controlling for such things...


Look.. you obviously don't like actual facts and evidence. You won't accept the truth.. despite it being spoon fed to you.


Trying to call other people liars.. when your faults are glaring..is just sad.
 
jaeger19 said:
I don't lie. It compared apples to apples by controlling for such things...


Look.. you obviously don't like actual facts and evidence. You won't accept the truth.. despite it being spoon fed to you.


Trying to call other people liars.. when your faults are glaring..is just sad.
Click to expand...
Why did it control for differences if the only difference is that Canada has single payer?
 
sangha said:
Why did it control for differences if the only difference is that Canada has single payer?
Click to expand...

You have to work really hard to be as obtuse as you are being.

They controlled for differences.. so that when they were comparing it would be apples to apples. SO.. they controlled for those differences by using years in which the Canadian economy and the US economy were similar AND when the laws governing bankruptcy were similar as well.

When then did that.. comparing apples to apples.. the only difference would be single payer... And what they found is it made no difference in bankruptcies.
 
jaeger19 said:
You have to work really hard to be as obtuse as you are being.

They controlled for differences.. so that when they were comparing it would be apples to apples. SO.. they controlled for those differences by using years in which the Canadian economy and the US economy were similar AND when the laws governing bankruptcy were similar as well.

When then did that.. comparing apples to apples.. the only difference would be single payer... And what they found is it made no difference in bankruptcies.
Click to expand...
If you want to believe a propaganda group backed by the Koch brothers and tobacco companies that argued that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, that's your choice.
 
QUOTE=sangha;1070120746]If you want to believe a propaganda group backed by the Koch brothers and tobacco companies that argued that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, that's your choice.[/QUOTE]

Yawn..nice try... look the evidence is clear... and its not just coming from "propaganda group backed by the Koch brothers".

The evidence is clear.. Even the very research that Himmelstein.. who declared that bankruptcy from medical bills was so prevalent, even his very research showed that ACTUAL medical debt was a very small percentage of the persons actual debt.

Look.. I get it. you are mad because your faith has been shown to be wrong by the evidence. I understand that you won't listen to facts, or logic or the truth.

IF you want.. you are free to believe that:

1. Medicare for All... will give us the savings like other countries... when the benefits in medicare for all (presented by Bernie) are much much higher than what other countries cover.
2. Private insurance companies will be taken out of the picture.. even though... 1. Currently about 60% of private insurance company revenue is actually from administering public plans like Medicare.. and 2. Almost all other countries have private insurance companies to cover those things that their single payer won't pay for

3. That economically Medicare for all is a free lunch. That cutting 4-6 % of GDP (i.e cutting healthcare).. won't have a negative effect on the economy. Especially when healthcare is not easily outsourced.. is made up of a lot of non profits.. and healthcare is now one of the premier source of jobs in the economy. BUT.. according to you.. cutting it will not have any negative effects.. GDP decreasing by 4-6%.. which is more than the great recession... will magiacally be made somewhere else.


4. That Medicare for ALL is going to replace Medicaid and be wonderful for poor people... Except that 1. Medicaid actually pays for much more than Medicare pays for.. for example it pays for long term care for elderly.. in nursing homes, in assisted livings. for long term home care... so if you get rid of Medicaid...what happens to the elderly and children that get these services from Medicaid.

AND 2. Medicaid in most states pays for a lot more than medicare..in that it usually doesn't have a copay.. where medicare partB has a 20% copay. Medicaid usually pays 100% for medications... while Medicare part D... only pays a portion.

Have a nice day sangha.


So hey.. that's just a short list of the BS that you have been told by those pushing medicare for all... but hey.. isn't it better for you to remain ignorant?
 
jaeger19 said:
QUOTE=sangha;1070120746]If you want to believe a propaganda group backed by the Koch brothers and tobacco companies that argued that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, that's your choice.
Click to expand...

Yawn..nice try... look the evidence is clear... and its not just coming from "propaganda group backed by the Koch brothers".

The evidence is clear.. Even the very research that Himmelstein.. who declared that bankruptcy from medical bills was so prevalent, even his very research showed that ACTUAL medical debt was a very small percentage of the persons actual debt.

Look.. I get it. you are mad because your faith has been shown to be wrong by the evidence. I understand that you won't listen to facts, or logic or the truth.

IF you want.. you are free to believe that:

1. Medicare for All... will give us the savings like other countries... when the benefits in medicare for all (presented by Bernie) are much much higher than what other countries cover.
2. Private insurance companies will be taken out of the picture.. even though... 1. Currently about 60% of private insurance company revenue is actually from administering public plans like Medicare.. and 2. Almost all other countries have private insurance companies to cover those things that their single payer won't pay for

3. That economically Medicare for all is a free lunch. That cutting 4-6 % of GDP (i.e cutting healthcare).. won't have a negative effect on the economy. Especially when healthcare is not easily outsourced.. is made up of a lot of non profits.. and healthcare is now one of the premier source of jobs in the economy. BUT.. according to you.. cutting it will not have any negative effects.. GDP decreasing by 4-6%.. which is more than the great recession... will magiacally be made somewhere else.


4. That Medicare for ALL is going to replace Medicaid and be wonderful for poor people... Except that 1. Medicaid actually pays for much more than Medicare pays for.. for example it pays for long term care for elderly.. in nursing homes, in assisted livings. for long term home care... so if you get rid of Medicaid...what happens to the elderly and children that get these services from Medicaid.

AND 2. Medicaid in most states pays for a lot more than medicare..in that it usually doesn't have a copay.. where medicare partB has a 20% copay. Medicaid usually pays 100% for medications... while Medicare part D... only pays a portion.

Have a nice day sangha.


So hey.. that's just a short list of the BS that you have been told by those pushing medicare for all... but hey.. isn't it better for you to remain ignorant?[/QUOTE]
I love the fact that you didn't even try to refute that you used a blatantly biased and corrupt source. And then there's all the straw men and idiocy. It's obvious that when you're pwned, you start ranting

Where did I say that a large portion of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt? Where did anyone say that saving money like Canada does means we will save the same exact amount?

Where did anyone say that M4A will provide the same exact coverage that Medicare does now?

Where did I say that M4A will completely eliminate insurance companies?

Answer: only in your fevered imagination
 
I love the fact that you didn't even try to refute that you used a blatantly biased and corrupt source.
Click to expand...

Well.. that's because either the research holds up or it doesn't. You didn't in any way refute the research.. you simply attacked the source. Basically the same as yelling "FAKE NEWS".. because you don't like what the research showed.

If you can refute the plethora of evidence that I presented.. that was actually DONE by a whole host of other researchers.. not "the corrupt source"...I suggest you do so. But we know you can't provide anything but yelping.

By the way.. one of the ways we know about cancer and smoking.. IS BECAUSE OF RESEARCH DONE BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES. So.. should we throw out good studies done... simply because the tobacco company sponsored that research? Sure...they did a lot to suppress their own research... or when it comes to the addictive effect of nicotine.. they actually used that research to help create more addicted smokers... Somehow.. I don't think you would throw that research out and say.." well.. obviously nicotine is not addictive.. because the tobacco companies research showed that it was addictive...and we know they are biased.".

Where did I say that a large portion of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt?
Click to expand...
You didn't. Manofknowledge advance the premise that medical debt was causing a significant number of bankruptcies..and that single payer would solve it.

I refuted that with a plethora of evidence that shows that premise is false. YOU sir have been very vocal defending that premise.

Where did anyone say that saving money like Canada does means we will save the same exact amount?
Click to expand...
Everyone... like Bernie.. that's says that Medicare for All will save money... and use Canada as an example to support their argument.

Where did anyone say that M4A will provide the same exact coverage that Medicare does now?
Click to expand...
Sure.. its just a coincidence that its called MEDICARE... for all. That's whats so sad about you trying to call ME a liar.


So.. you call me a liar.. and yet you willingly accept that its called MEDICARE.. for all.. but you acknowledge that its not going to be actually like Medicare.':doh



You accept that proponents of medicare for all.. routinely cite other countries as examples of the savings they get from single payer... while KNOWING that the single payer Bernie is proposing covers way more than those countries do.

And you accept that proponents of medicare for all.. talk about the savings to be had from getting rid of private insurance companies.. etc.. while KNOWING that private insurance companies aren't going anywhere.

Yeah.. at the end of the day... the Medicare for all folks are the ones doing the lying.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. that's because either the research holds up or it doesn't. You didn't in any way refute the research.. you simply attacked the source. Basically the same as yelling "FAKE NEWS".. because you don't like what the research showed.

If you can refute the plethora of evidence that I presented.. that was actually DONE by a whole host of other researchers.. not "the corrupt source"...I suggest you do so. But we know you can't provide anything but yelping.

By the way.. one of the ways we know about cancer and smoking.. IS BECAUSE OF RESEARCH DONE BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES. So.. should we throw out good studies done... simply because the tobacco company sponsored that research? Sure...they did a lot to suppress their own research... or when it comes to the addictive effect of nicotine.. they actually used that research to help create more addicted smokers... Somehow.. I don't think you would throw that research out and say.." well.. obviously nicotine is not addictive.. because the tobacco companies research showed that it was addictive...and we know they are biased.".

You didn't. Manofknowledge advance the premise that medical debt was causing a significant number of bankruptcies..and that single payer would solve it.

I refuted that with a plethora of evidence that shows that premise is false. YOU sir have been very vocal defending that premise.

Everyone... like Bernie.. that's says that Medicare for All will save money... and use Canada as an example to support their argument.

Sure.. its just a coincidence that its called MEDICARE... for all. That's whats so sad about you trying to call ME a liar.


So.. you call me a liar.. and yet you willingly accept that its called MEDICARE.. for all.. but you acknowledge that its not going to be actually like Medicare.':doh



You accept that proponents of medicare for all.. routinely cite other countries as examples of the savings they get from single payer... while KNOWING that the single payer Bernie is proposing covers way more than those countries do.

And you accept that proponents of medicare for all.. talk about the savings to be had from getting rid of private insurance companies.. etc.. while KNOWING that private insurance companies aren't going anywhere.

Yeah.. at the end of the day... the Medicare for all folks are the ones doing the lying.
Click to expand...
Boy so many lies.

How did I defend the claim that medical bills are causing bankruptcies when the only thing I've said about medical bankruptcy is that I said nothing about medical bankruptcy?

Sanders has never said the US would save the same amount as Canada.

You think that because people are calling it Medicare for All it has to cover the same exact amount that Medicare does? :lamo

Some people said insurance companies would disappear so therefore I shouldn't support M4A?

Your arguments are becoming more and more unhinged from reality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom