Democratic 2020 Candidates All Move To Embrace Bernie's Medicare-For-All

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Democrats are finally making their play: they’re moving toward single-payer healthcare.

On Monday, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (D) announced that he would support Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-Loonbagia) single-payer healthcare bill that would supposedly guarantee “Medicare-for-all.” He explained, “This is something that’s got to happen. ObamaCare was a first step in advancing this country, but I won’t rest until every American has a basic security that comes with having access to affordable health care… you should not be punished because you are working-class or poor and be denied health care. I think health care should be a right to all.” This is Booker’s latest attempt at moving to the hard left in order to prep for a presidential run. He now joins California Senator Kamala Harris among the would-be 2020 candidates who have embraced Sanders’ plan.

This was no shock. First off, Sanders demonstrated that you simply cannot run too far to the left in a Democratic primary – no such category exists. Run too far toward the center, and a self-proclaimed socialist like Sanders will outflank you. Second, this shows that Democrats were lying all along when they stated that Obamacare was not the first step toward nationalized health care.



Democratic 2020 Candidates All Move To Embrace Bernie's Medicare-For-All
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Canadian Doctor on Sanders’ Podcast Notes Year-Long Wait Under Canadian Single-Payer


Dr. Danielle Martin appeared on Sanders' podcast, the Bernie Sanders Show, to discuss the Canadian single-payer health care system. Sanders' Medicare-for-all bill, which went to the Senate floor on Wednesday with 15 Democratic co-sponsors, is intended to create a similar system in the United States.

Sanders brought up some misgivings Americans may have about living under a health care system similar to Canada's.

"There is concern about waiting time, for example," Sanders noted.

Martin explained that Canadians do not wait for urgent or emergent care, and insisted that outcomes are "excellent" for those conditions.

"Having said that, we do have a problem with wait times for what we call elective or non-urgent procedures," Martin said.

"If I have a patient who's got migraines and I need advice about how to manage it, they might wait several months to see a neurologist for a non-urgent problem like that. Or non-urgent surgeries, the classic example being a hip or a knee replacement," she said.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
5 Reasons Bernie's Health Care Plan Is Just AWFUL
"If you like your health care plan, you sure CANNOT keep it. Period."


1.) It will dramatically increase payroll taxes. Here's a helpful tip: anytime a politician says "free," just immediately add a few percentages to your tax bracket, which would definitely be the case in Bernie's plan, which calls for a 7.5% payroll tax on employers and a 4% “income-based premium” on all Americans. Sanders made a similar, albeit much more modest, proposal of 6.2% payroll tax increase last year, and according to a 2016 analysis of that proposal by Emory University Professor Kenneth Thorpe, the payroll tax would reduce wages.

"The new tax burden would vary dramatically by income. Low-income working families would pay 2.2 percent of taxable income and face a 6.2 percent reduction in wages traced to the employer payroll tax," he wrote. "Individuals and families earning over $250,000 would face a 40 percent increase in taxes to finance the plan and pay for most of the new costs of the plan."

2.) It will cost trillions.

3.) High costs means price controls.

4.) Bureaucrats will determine appropriate healthcare, NOT you. As Americans woefully witnessed during the horrific Charlie Gard case in Britain, if the government foots the bill for healthcare, then government gets the final say. Sanders claims the new system will be "simple" and free Americans of having to haggle with insurers, but that is a lie. Instead of haggling with insurers, whom they can always threaten to leave, Americans will now be forced to fight with government bureaucrats for their medical needs.

"Government officials cannot control the demand for medical services; they can only control the supply of medical goods and services," NI reports. "In practice, this means that government officials must determine what kind of care patients get, how they get it, under what circumstances they get it, and how those services will be 'priced.' (They don’t negotiate prices; they fix them.)"

"The Medicare program, with its tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations and guidelines, demonstrates that painful fact daily to any Medicare patient struggling with a Medicare claims denial, or any doctor or any other medical professional wrestling with Medicare paperwork. Meanwhile, forget personal freedom."

5.) If you like your healthcare plan, you sure CANNOT keep it. Period



:yay:
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
What the Democrats are really saying is that we all are entitled to really bad health care that we all pay through the nose for.

Of course those who are rich enough to afford it , and for Congress (we really cannot expect those rare exceptional people to have to wait for care) there will be special care.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
We already have a nearly intolerable situation where medical personnel have absolutely NO incentive to keep costs down.

If insurance companies are willing to pay X amount for a medical visit or procedure, the amount billed will rise to meet it.

Capitalism works when participants compete - our present system has very little.

What happens THEN, when government takes over? You know, that vast entity known as the greatest squanderer of cash known to human civilization?
What happens when there's NO competition?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
What happens THEN, when government takes over? You know, that vast entity known as the greatest squanderer of cash known to human civilization?
What happens when there's NO competition?

Cost controls. That's how its done in Norway (and in UK, Canada, etc). Law suits for medical malpractice or product/drug side effects are almost completely unheard of and not entertained. The salaries of doctors and nurses are low and, in the case of the latter, result in shortages, low morale and even strikes. Rationed care; long wait times for non-critical medical or dental procedures.
 

philibusters

Active Member
The Democrats are finally making their play: they’re moving toward single-payer healthcare.

On Monday, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (D) announced that he would support Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-Loonbagia) single-payer healthcare bill that would supposedly guarantee “Medicare-for-all.” He explained, “This is something that’s got to happen. ObamaCare was a first step in advancing this country, but I won’t rest until every American has a basic security that comes with having access to affordable health care… you should not be punished because you are working-class or poor and be denied health care. I think health care should be a right to all.” This is Booker’s latest attempt at moving to the hard left in order to prep for a presidential run. He now joins California Senator Kamala Harris among the would-be 2020 candidates who have embraced Sanders’ plan.

This was no shock. First off, Sanders demonstrated that you simply cannot run too far to the left in a Democratic primary – no such category exists. Run too far toward the center, and a self-proclaimed socialist like Sanders will outflank you. Second, this shows that Democrats were lying all along when they stated that Obamacare was not the first step toward nationalized health care.



Democratic 2020 Candidates All Move To Embrace Bernie's Medicare-For-All

I don't think the Democrats were necessarily lying when they denied Obamacare was a first step towards a single payer system. I think there was probably optimism among Democrats that Obamacare would be more successful than it actually turned out to be.

In the long run, whether its now or 20 years from now, it does seem likely that we are going to go have to go to a single payer system. Our peers (other industrialized countries) have more people covered (every citizen is covered) and it is still less expensive. Granted the top end healthcare is those countries is not as good as ours, but if you can potentially get more people covered for less total expenditure, its something you have to pursue, even if its means losing top end care. There will always be some top end care available and the rich will find it. Perhaps some of the upper middle class who gets top end care currently from cadalliac insurance plans through their work will lose that care and won't be able to afford it out of their own pocket, but that seems a small tradeoff.

One problem the U.S. will face is how much of the convoluted baggage that is our current healthcare system would be carried over to a single payer system. Simply going to a single payer system without other reforms would like drive up healthcare prices, not lower costs. Since countries like Canada, England, and France have long had single payer system, they don't really have all the baggage our system has.
 

philibusters

Active Member
5 Reasons Bernie's Health Care Plan Is Just AWFUL
"If you like your health care plan, you sure CANNOT keep it. Period."


1.) It will dramatically increase payroll taxes. Here's a helpful tip: anytime a politician says "free," just immediately add a few percentages to your tax bracket, which would definitely be the case in Bernie's plan, which calls for a 7.5% payroll tax on employers and a 4% “income-based premium” on all Americans. Sanders made a similar, albeit much more modest, proposal of 6.2% payroll tax increase last year, and according to a 2016 analysis of that proposal by Emory University Professor Kenneth Thorpe, the payroll tax would reduce wages.

"The new tax burden would vary dramatically by income. Low-income working families would pay 2.2 percent of taxable income and face a 6.2 percent reduction in wages traced to the employer payroll tax," he wrote. "Individuals and families earning over $250,000 would face a 40 percent increase in taxes to finance the plan and pay for most of the new costs of the plan."

2.) It will cost trillions.

3.) High costs means price controls.

4.) Bureaucrats will determine appropriate healthcare, NOT you. As Americans woefully witnessed during the horrific Charlie Gard case in Britain, if the government foots the bill for healthcare, then government gets the final say. Sanders claims the new system will be "simple" and free Americans of having to haggle with insurers, but that is a lie. Instead of haggling with insurers, whom they can always threaten to leave, Americans will now be forced to fight with government bureaucrats for their medical needs.

"Government officials cannot control the demand for medical services; they can only control the supply of medical goods and services," NI reports. "In practice, this means that government officials must determine what kind of care patients get, how they get it, under what circumstances they get it, and how those services will be 'priced.' (They don’t negotiate prices; they fix them.)"

"The Medicare program, with its tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations and guidelines, demonstrates that painful fact daily to any Medicare patient struggling with a Medicare claims denial, or any doctor or any other medical professional wrestling with Medicare paperwork. Meanwhile, forget personal freedom."

5.) If you like your healthcare plan, you sure CANNOT keep it. Period


:yay:

All five of those points strike me as likely to be true if we adopt a single payer system, yet I still support a single payer system. Basically to get everybody covered would be a huge accomplishment. Further there would be a realistic possibility to reduce overall healthcare expenditures.

Granted its absolutely true taxes would rise, but that doesn't mean for example people are worse necessarily. Lets looked at the payroll tax increase for companies. It calls for a 7.5% payroll tax. I am not sure if that means there is a 1.3% increase (form the current 6.2 to 7.5% or it means going from 6.2 to 13.7%). Either way it doesn't necessarily mean companies are worse off. Why? Because they will no longer need to provide health insurance for their employees because the gov't would provide it. For example if they were spending $5,000 per employee on average per year, whether the company is better or worse off depends on whether the new taxes average out to more than $5,000 per employee.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Why? Because they will no longer need to provide health insurance for their employees because the gov't would provide it. For example if they were spending $5,000 per employee on average per year, whether the company is better or worse off depends on whether the new taxes average out to more than $5,000 per employee.

And what about the many companies that do not provide health insurance benefits? What about all the individuals that pay nothing in to Medicare/medicaid?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Since countries like Canada, England, and France have long had single payer system, they don't really have all the baggage our system has.



Riding on the coat tails of American Research and Innovation ....


how much research and innovation do you think are going to be there after Gov. Price Controls and Regulation ?
 

philibusters

Active Member
Riding on the coat tails of American Research and Innovation ....


how much research and innovation do you think are going to be there after Gov. Price Controls and Regulation ?

There will be a reduction, but research won't stop. Not all innovation and research comes from American companies. Some innovations come from companies located in countries with single payer system.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
I think one of the biggest problems with health care is the lack of transparency of the actual costs. If a doctor/hospital accepts $x when an insurer pays, then why does it cost $y if a patient pays? Ask most people what their doctor visit cost and virtually everyone will say it cost them whatever their copay was, not the actual cost of the visit and certainly not the amount the doctor accepted from the insurer. How can the government mandate everything on a fast food menu have all the nutritional information readily displayed but not force the medical profession to display the costs of their services?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I think one of the biggest problems with health care is the lack of transparency of the actual costs. If a doctor/hospital accepts $x when an insurer pays, then why does it cost $y if a patient pays? Ask most people what their doctor visit cost and virtually everyone will say it cost them whatever their copay was, not the actual cost of the visit and certainly not the amount the doctor accepted from the insurer. How can the government mandate everything on a fast food menu have all the nutritional information readily displayed but not force the medical profession to display the costs of their services?

I like that. One thing is certain no two people go to a hospital and pay the same amount.
If the costs are not listed somewhere how do we know if we are getting screwed or not?
The answer is they don't want you to know.
 
Top