WATCH NOW: Iowa presidential candidate forum from Council Bluffs. Appearing: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
172
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

172 Views
Message 1 of 109

In the run-up to the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Platform Committee approved a plank supporting the addition of a Public Option onto the Affordable Care Act.

The decision was seen as a compromise measure between the Hillary Clinton campaign who during the 2016 presidential primaries advocated for keeping and reforming the ACA, and the Bernie Sanders campaign who advocated for repealing and replacing the ACA with a single-payer Medicare for All program. 

The Clinton campaign stated shortly before the plank was added that as president Clinton would "pursue efforts to give Americans in every state in the country the choice of a public-option insurance plan", while Bernie Sanders applauded the decision to "see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their health care exchange, which will lower the cost of healthcare".

 

Costs would be so much lower with a Public Option.

  • First, because the government is non-profit. Since their goal is to cover their costs, but not profit by the service, they don't have to build the profit into their premiums.
  • Second, because administrative costs would be lower. No marketing costs, smaller administrative costs. Estimates for current public payer programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, CHIP, and the VA) average 3% to 11%. Estimates for private insurers run from 25% to 35%.
  • Third, because a very large entity has better bargaining power. Better bargaining power would bring down pricing for all aspects of healthcare. Further, because private insurers would be in competition with the public option, the private insurers would have to lower their premiums and bargain more intensely, too.

Private health insurers complain that a public option, because it would cost so much less, and because it would have such massive negotiating power, would put them out of business. They would not be able to afford to sustain their levels of service or keep paying their investors. Further, they raise the fear that eventually so many people would flock to the public option, that the United States would end up with a single-payer system.
Which would explain why they are deliberately trying to undermine Medicare for All.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
172
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
173
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

173 Views
Message 2 of 109

@gordyfl wrote:

If something fits the definition of socialism people saying, "So" doesn't change it's reality.

 

Here in the United States, Single Payer Healthcare is "American as apple pie" if you're 65, but a communistic tyrannical end of freedom if you're 64.

 


The theory is that circumstances change when one retires and a common age was selected. And, Medicare was based on the theory that people would not properly prepare for retirement so they were forced into it. Yes, forced but still contributing to their own future needs. Totally different from all citizens at any age automatically and regardless of age or contributions  collecting benefits.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
173
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

176 Views
Message 3 of 109

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Socialism means Government OWNERSHIP and ADMINISTRATION of major industries. Today, this only exists in North Korea.

 

You're right - private ownership but government ownership is fascism.

 

Civilization requires citizen access to necessary goods and services.

And freedom requires the ability to earn the necessities not be automatically granted them by Big Brother.

 

Expanding the definition of what is necessary is how civilization advances.

Or dependency on the government advances.

 

Republicans wish us to return to the feudal civilization in which only a precious few had access to the goods and services. All others begged those services from the few, or did without. They have succeeded in drastically reducing citizen access to higher education, housing and rising incomes and are determined to continue the rationing of health care. They must be stopped so civilization can advance.

 As always the mind reading act fails.

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
176
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
178
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

178 Views
Message 4 of 109

If something fits the definition of socialism people saying, "So" doesn't change it's reality.

 

Here in the United States, Single Payer Healthcare is "American as apple pie" if you're 65, but a communistic tyrannical end of freedom if you're 64.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
178
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
182
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

182 Views
Message 5 of 109

Socialism means Government OWNERSHIP and ADMINISTRATION of major industries. Today, this only exists in North Korea.

 

Civilization requires citizen access to necessary goods and services.

 

Expanding the definition of what is necessary is how civilization advances.

 

Republicans wish us to return to the feudal civilization in which only a precious few had access to the goods and services. All others begged those services from the few, or did without. They have succeeded in drastically reducing citizen access to higher education, housing and rising incomes and are determined to continue the rationing of health care. They must be stopped so civilization can advance.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
182
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
187
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

187 Views
Message 6 of 109

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

A good point - we have people in this country and on these boards who truly are neoMarxists - part of the Progressive Movement - yet were unwilling to enter into an open honest discussion on Marxism. 

 

I do not believe that pointing out the Socialist aspects of proposed programs is not "falling back on". I believe it it is honesty.


Since a Canadian style healthcare system does not match the dictionary definition of Socialism and you will not define the term as you use it, I am not sure "honest" is the adjective I would use to describe your argument. 

 

However, as long as we can agree on the studies which demonstrate the Canadian health care system is less expensive and provides better outcomes than the American system, I don't really care what you call it. The REALLY good news is; neither do the Millenials. 


What do you see as non-Socialized medicine about "single payer"?

 

And, sadly, you are right about the Millennials - if they can get something for nothing, it's name or it's implications as to the government/governed relationship is not a factor to them.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
187
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
191
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

191 Views
Message 7 of 109

@Richva wrote:

One of the interesting side effects of the near constant cries of "That's Socialism" coming from the Right is that it seems to have caused the newer generations of voters to ask "Yeah? So?". 

 

If something fits the definition of socialism people saying, "So" doesn't change it's reality. The younger generation has been taught entitlement so it is reasonable that they would be prime targets for such an approach.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
191
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
195
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

195 Views
Message 8 of 109

@Olderscout66 wrote:


Once again semantics are used to support absurdist logic. Only GOPers think the proposal is to put EVERYONE on the CURRENT system of Medicare, and I wonder if they really are that dense or are just taking advantage of their own lofos propensity for easy deception so they don't have to discuss the actual issues.

 

Now where would anyone get the idea that "Medicare for all" means "everyone on Medicare"??

 

But I do agree. "Medicare for all" is just a slogan to hide the realities of just one more welfare (or wealth redistribution) program.

 

Sadly, some think so poorly of their fellow man ("lofos") that they assume the fraud will not be seen for what it is.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
195
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
209
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

209 Views
Message 9 of 109

@rk9152 wrote:

A good point - we have people in this country and on these boards who truly are neoMarxists - part of the Progressive Movement - yet were unwilling to enter into an open honest discussion on Marxism. 

 

I do not believe that pointing out the Socialist aspects of proposed programs is not "falling back on". I believe it it is honesty.


Since a Canadian style healthcare system does not match the dictionary definition of Socialism and you will not define the term as you use it, I am not sure "honest" is the adjective I would use to describe your argument. 

 

However, as long as we can agree on the studies which demonstrate the Canadian health care system is less expensive and provides better outcomes than the American system, I don't really care what you call it. The REALLY good news is; neither do the Millenials. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
209
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
216
Views

Re: Medicare for all: The long game is working

216 Views
Message 10 of 109

@Richva wrote:

One of the interesting side effects of the near constant cries of "That's Socialism" coming from the Right is that it seems to have caused the newer generations of voters to ask "Yeah? So?". 

 

As the liberals continue to guide the nation toward a single payer health system with an eye to a Canadian style health system, the conservatives simply have no other argument against the lower costs and better health outcomes the Canadian system has provided.  Falling back on "That's Socialism" is redefining the term to mean cost and outcome effective.  


A good point - we have people in this country and on these boards who truly are neoMarxists - part of the Progressive Movement - yet were unwilling to enter into an open honest discussion on Marxism. 

 

I do not believe that pointing out the Socialist aspects of proposed programs is not "falling back on". I believe it it is honesty.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
216
Views