• 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!

If Medicare for All is so bad, what should Americans have instead?

Why people don't think this healthcare from Society perspective. When you look all current mechanisms having effect on Society - you should also ask about values too (both have to be together without conflicts to avoid any justification issues).

I don't know what kind of system is good for America, but as concept Medicare for All has been successful in other developed countries (as far as I know, for example here in Finland it's only reasonable way). Just make sure alternative system is better and also define what kind of values it reflect when it's running (from fruit we know the tree -logic). First step is finding right questions. Better start to think what's Society(US) is about and how it's off from ideal (or is it perfect just like it is). Healthcare is only one nuance in how Society is running, how people feel about their lives, chances.. and so on.

What kind of rights you think people should have in America? That's just one question, there's lot of things to consider, but that's how I like to think about it (somewhat logical starting point).
 
What kind of rights you think people should have in America? That's just one question, there's lot of things to consider, but that's how I like to think about it (somewhat logical starting point).

I don't think anyone, anywhere, at anytime has the right to demand goods and services. You have the right to certain actions, not to the productivity of another.
 
I don't think anyone, anywhere, at anytime has the right to demand goods and services. You have the right to certain actions, not to the productivity of another.

Here everyone have access to healthcare (no matter how poor you are), it's just how our society works here (reflects the will of the people, so no justification problems here). Maybe that's insane concept for Americans (?)
 
Medicaid expansion being done in all the states that did not accept the prior expansion would equal about 4.8million people.. not 43 million. It was already budgeted for under the ACA.



You don't have any proposals. YOU are the ones that been assuming. You are the one that has been saying derogatory things about my proposals etc.

the only thing you have... is support for Medicare for all.. without any idea of the economic and social ramifications of it.

YOU stated that I had a "hole in my logic"... so far.. you haven't brought up any hole.

So, I take that as a no.
 
Oh.. hes not saying it CAN"T work here. He is saying.. in fact a lot of people are saying... look what has to happen for it to work here. Other countries do make their single payer work. By DOING THINGS LIKE PROVIDING LESS COVERAGE...and all sorts of other things.

Here's the thing. You keep making the assertion that other systems provide less coverage. You have not provided any objective evidence that is true, and you can't, because it isn't. My Canadian friends rave about their coverage, and literally laugh at us. My English friends are quite satisfied with theirs. Same in Spain and France.

Polls indicate that physicians are about evenly split on Medicare for all, mostly because it is so ill-defined. Among administrators it is closer to 40% support (and varies widely depending on where employed).
 
Here's the thing. You keep making the assertion that other systems provide less coverage. You have not provided any objective evidence that is true, and you can't, because it isn't. My Canadian friends rave about their coverage, and literally laugh at us. My English friends are quite satisfied with theirs. Same in Spain and France.

Polls indicate that physicians are about evenly split on Medicare for all, mostly because it is so ill-defined. Among administrators it is closer to 40% support (and varies widely depending on where employed).

Sure I have.

I have posted several times links to what the Canadian government single payer pays for. Go ask your Canadian friends if the Canada government single payer pays for outpatient medicines. Because it doesn.t. The same with outpatient physical therapy , occupational therapy and speech therapy. They will tell you that it doesn't.

My English friends are quite satisfied with theirs. Same in Spain and France.
OF course. So what? You really find it surprising that another country has the healthcare system that they like? Duh. I could say the same for a lot of things. I am sure if I asked in a muslim country if they like the law banning women from driving.. they would support it.

Not sure that it would fly here in the US though. The same with healthcare. Their ARE tradeoffs to their systems. And most americans are NOT going to like those tradeoffs.

For example.. the person on Medicaid... that will see their coverage DECREASE.. while their taxes INCREASE.. is not going to be happy.. with European style healthcare.

The same for the person on Medicare.

Polls indicate that physicians are about evenly split on Medicare for all, mostly because it is so ill-defined

And its also split as Bave said between those physicians that work for someone else and are insulated from actually financial issues. and those physicians that understand the financial issues of providing care.
 
Here everyone have access to healthcare (no matter how poor you are), it's just how our society works here (reflects the will of the people, so no justification problems here). Maybe that's insane concept for Americans (?)

With all due respect you can decide to provide an entitlement benefit, but that doesn't make it a right. A right is something inherent and has no burden on another party. I have the right to vote, free speech, freedom of religion, and to own a gun. I don't have the right to housing, food, healthcare, or education.

Further, your society has a population that is about half of some of our *counties*. Comparing Finland to America is rather laughable.

Here's the thing. You keep making the assertion that other systems provide less coverage. You have not provided any objective evidence that is true, and you can't, because it isn't. My Canadian friends rave about their coverage, and literally laugh at us. My English friends are quite satisfied with theirs. Same in Spain and France.

Polls indicate that physicians are about evenly split on Medicare for all, mostly because it is so ill-defined. Among administrators it is closer to 40% support (and varies widely depending on where employed).

Anecdotes.

Your english friends are so happy that for the last few years the % of the population getting private insurance is going up by almost 2% a *year*. Do you think people are deciding to spend thousands of pounds a year when they are happy with what they had before? Look at the number of Canadians who come to the states for medical care, what does that tell you? Almost every national system actually admits to rationing care including death panels. In the UK, do you think they are doing hip arthoplasty on 80 year olds? It doesn't happen. Look at the rate of joint replacements in the US via medicare and compare them to NHS, it's 10:1. Look at treatments for macular degeneration, in the UK you just go blind and in the US you get Restasis.

Again, as to polls on physicians, you need to understand the failing. Here is the question posed:

"Do you think all Americans should have access to universal care?"

Who doesn't think that is a good idea? But here is the more realistic question which ought to be posed to physicians:

"Do you think all Americans should have access to universal care if it means increased taxes, lower funding for hospitals and clinics, increased workload and reduced salaries for healthcare professionals"?

That's the honest question and Bernie has outright admitted that is his intent. He has *stated* he would increase taxes on everyone, reduce reimbursement to hospitals and physicians, and require physicians accept these patients in unlimited numbers.
 
Comparing Finland to America is rather laughable.

"Do you think all Americans should have access to universal care if it means increased taxes, lower funding for hospitals and clinics, increased workload and reduced salaries for healthcare professionals"?

The 'USA is too big for MFA/Single Payer to work' mantra is invalid; its a fact that the larger the service or market, the lower the price - if anything, its an argument For MFA.

And given that the USA will be one of the last major countries to design and implement MFA (for lack of a better acronym), would it not enable us to build our system with safeguards and policies to eliminate or reduce the pitfalls naysayers use to argue against MFA? We could pay at the same Negotiated Rate(s) that Insurance now pays hospitals and physicians, and distribute preventative care (which the poor and un/under insured cannot access), to Nurse Practitioners, PA's, and screening clinics. This would free-up physician's time for MD-specific procedures and diagnostics, rather than the endless follow-up and 'routine' exams, complete with overbookings and rushed appointments dictated by Insurance Providers and 'head-count' style medicine.

The largest problem with the America's system is Unregulated Profit, driven by insurance companies, lawyers, boardrooms, and greedy physicians and goods-and-services providers. There are far too many cooks in the kitchen, and by simply reigning in excessive and unnecssary profits (mandatory insurance), corporation-invented medical emergencies that can be miraculously treated with their drugs or goods, and opportunistic ambulance-chaser lawyers, the cost of care would drop precipitously.

Remember, a healthy and well schooled populace is what truly great countries are made of.
 
Last edited:
And given that the USA will be one of the last major countries to design and implement MFA (for lack of a better acronym), would it not enable us to build our system with safeguards and policies to eliminate or reduce the pitfalls naysayers use to argue against MFA? We could pay at the same Negotiated Rate(s) that Insurance now pays hospitals and physicians, and distribute preventative care (which the poor and un/under insured cannot access), to Nurse Practitioners, PA's, and screening clinics. This would free-up physician's time for MD-specific procedures and diagnostics, rather than the endless follow-up and 'routine' exams, complete with overbookings and rushed appointments dictated by Insurance Providers and 'head-count' style medicine.

I don't think you understand your intellectual disconnect here. AS a result of the lowered reimbursement that insurances are paying.. (of which medicare is one of the lowest).. we have arrived at the
the endless follow-up and 'routine' exams, complete with overbookings and rushed appointments dictated by Insurance Providers and 'head-count' style medicine.

We have arrived at this system in large part because of declining reimbursement.
 
Why should people who are happy with their insurance be forced into such a folly?

Because everyone can lose a job or business and end up without any insurance, and a pre-existing condition...
 
That can be said about any health care plan. Why would you expect MFA to suck?

The world wide examples tend to have draw backs from huge waits that are detrimental to your health and costs that cripple economic growth.
 
I am not sure what to think about Medicare for All - whether it specifically is the right idea or something else should be made up by the federal government. But this much is clear: private health insurance companies are to blame for millions of patients not getting what they need every day. Conservatives are constantly criticizing the MFA proposals without offering any alternative ideas that would take for-profit insurers out of the picture. What is wrong with MFA and what is a better single player plan for American health care? (Note: Universal health care coverage is an obligation the government has to serve the American people, so nothing involving private insurance companies will be accepted.)

Equality and equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.

Persons should be able to obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

At the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with or without a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, what Person would not be able to make fine capital insurance and payment arrangements under our form of Capitalism?
 
I am not sure what to think about Medicare for All - whether it specifically is the right idea or something else should be made up by the federal government.

Let me help you. What you should think about it is that it's the best choice. The Lancet just released a study showing Medicare for All would reduce US healthcare costs by $450 billion, and save 68,000 lives (more than all the US casualties in Vietnam) every year.
 
Let me help you. What you should think about it is that it's the best choice. The Lancet just released a study showing Medicare for All would reduce US healthcare costs by $450 billion, and save 68,000 lives (more than all the US casualties in Vietnam) every year.

That is exactly what I want - more lives saved, more people getting healthy, more people staying healthy. But how will an economic disaster be avoided? How will longer wait times be no worse than it already is now? I don't know how it will work logistically.
 
I am not sure what to think about Medicare for All - whether it specifically is the right idea or something else should be made up by the federal government. But this much is clear: private health insurance companies are to blame for millions of patients not getting what they need every day. Conservatives are constantly criticizing the MFA proposals without offering any alternative ideas that would take for-profit insurers out of the picture. What is wrong with MFA and what is a better single player plan for American health care? (Note: Universal health care coverage is an obligation the government has to serve the American people, so nothing involving private insurance companies will be accepted.)

I m against Medicare for all.

Why? It's too freakin good.

I got it one year ago and it is the least expensive, by far, even with the supplement, that I have ever had.

Not only that, I have seen the best doctors in the world, literally, this past year.

(BTW, the Bush prescription plan, is a disaster. A complete rip off. A give away to the insurance companies and big pharma.

I waited 65 years to get it, if they give it to all, it will not be the same. Can't be, it's too perfect now.
 
I am not sure what to think about Medicare for All - whether it specifically is the right idea or something else should be made up by the federal government. But this much is clear: private health insurance companies are to blame for millions of patients not getting what they need every day. Conservatives are constantly criticizing the MFA proposals without offering any alternative ideas that would take for-profit insurers out of the picture. What is wrong with MFA and what is a better single player plan for American health care? (Note: Universal health care coverage is an obligation the government has to serve the American people, so nothing involving private insurance companies will be accepted.)

If Medicare is so great why do so many seniors have to buy supplemental insurance out of pocket? Multiply that answer by "for all".
 
That is exactly what I want - more lives saved, more people getting healthy, more people staying healthy. But how will an economic disaster be avoided? How will longer wait times be no worse than it already is now? I don't know how it will work logistically.

Well, there are a lot of details and variables we don't have exact answers to. The VA is the highest rated system in the country, yet wait times vary greatly depending on the funding and how it's run. Any system has variables like that.
 
If Medicare is so great why do so many seniors have to buy supplemental insurance out of pocket? Multiply that answer by "for all".

Because by design Medicare is limited; which is why Bernie wants to partly expand the coverage. If I offer you $1600 toward your $2000 bill, does that make the $1600 bad?
 
If Medicare is so great why do so many seniors have to buy supplemental insurance out of pocket? Multiply that answer by "for all."

Medicare is not great now, but Bernie Sanders plans to fix its flaws. He wants Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower medication prices (which currently is not permitted). There will be no Part D as Bush created it; all Americans can buy medications with one plan. As it is now, there are big flaws prevening old Americans from getting everything they need without supplemental health insurance.
 
Medicare is not great now, but Bernie Sanders plans to fix its flaws. He wants Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower medication prices (which currently is not permitted). There will be no Part D as Bush created it; all Americans can buy medications with one plan. As it is now, there are big flaws prevening old Americans from getting everything they need without supplemental health insurance.

So he has a plan for one part of it. Does he have a plan for how he is going to pay for the nursing home for tens of millions of baby boomers? does he have a plan for how he is going to pay for all the expensive procedures that are done not part of hospitalization?
 
So he has a plan for one part of it. Does he have a plan for how he is going to pay for the nursing home for tens of millions of Baby Boomers? Does he have a plan for how he is going to pay for all the expensive procedures that are done not part of hospitalization?

Am I allowed to post his campaign website link here? It has all the details about his plan, which goes far beyond drug prices.
 
Back
Top Bottom