Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Healthcare in America?


Recommended Posts

Medicare For All Is Coming, No Matter What They Say-

 

"More than half of all Americans, 53 percent, now want a single-payer plan, up from 40 percent in 1998-2000.

But at the same time, Medicare for all suffers from the rise of a new growth industry: telling Americans what can’t be done to make their lives better..

 

Much of that opposition adopts the world-weary pose of the seasoned professional who has abandoned the idealism of his youth and is regrettably forced pass his disillusionment on to those who are more naïve.......

 

 

Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidacy injected the single-payer idea into the political discourse. That created an opening for Democrats to embrace the idea as they seek to oppose Republican efforts to dismantle Obamacare....

 

“President Obama tried to move us forward with health care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” Warren recently said. “Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single-payer.”

 

...A single-payer health system could set rates and design treatment guidelines that are based on best practices and are subject to public debate, unlike private plans...

 

 

The best way to defend the ACA is the way Bernie Sanders is doing it. Sanders is barnstorming the country condemning Republican plans to gut the law, a move that would cause tens of thousands of needless deaths to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut.

But he is also making it clear that the ultimate goal — the goal that reflects both the public’s needs and our shared progressive values — is Medicare for all...

 

llmoyers.com/story/medicare-for-all-coming-no-matter-what-they-say/

 

 

Good old Bill Moyers.  Always spot on.  But what hope is there when just about everyone in Washington is beholden to lobbyists who wish to keep the money flowing to insurance and drug companies.  Even democrats are on the take here.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare For All Is Coming, No Matter What They Say-

 

"More than half of all Americans, 53 percent, now want a single-payer plan, up from 40 percent in 1998-2000.

But at the same time, Medicare for all suffers from the rise of a new growth industry: telling Americans what can’t be done to make their lives better..

 

Much of that opposition adopts the world-weary pose of the seasoned professional who has abandoned the idealism of his youth and is regrettably forced pass his disillusionment on to those who are more naïve.......

 

 

Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidacy injected the single-payer idea into the political discourse. That created an opening for Democrats to embrace the idea as they seek to oppose Republican efforts to dismantle Obamacare....

 

“President Obama tried to move us forward with health care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” Warren recently said. “Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single-payer.”

 

...A single-payer health system could set rates and design treatment guidelines that are based on best practices and are subject to public debate, unlike private plans...

 

 

The best way to defend the ACA is the way Bernie Sanders is doing it. Sanders is barnstorming the country condemning Republican plans to gut the law, a move that would cause tens of thousands of needless deaths to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut.

But he is also making it clear that the ultimate goal — the goal that reflects both the public’s needs and our shared progressive values — is Medicare for all...

 

llmoyers.com/story/medicare-for-all-coming-no-matter-what-they-say/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare For All Is Coming, No Matter What They Say-

 

"More than half of all Americans, 53 percent, now want a single-payer plan, up from 40 percent in 1998-2000.

 

The best way to defend the ACA is the way Bernie Sanders is doing it. Sanders is barnstorming the country condemning Republican plans to gut the law, a move that would cause tens of thousands of needless deaths to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut.

But he is also making it clear that the ultimate goal — the goal that reflects both the public’s needs and our shared progressive values — is Medicare for all...

 

 

My pessimistic side coming out, but I can see problems with the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et. al. approach.  Telling the people that Medicare for all is coming is the quickest way to enable passage of the Republican health care act.  53% in some survey may say they want single payer, but they really don't when it comes down to how to pay for it and what it entails.

Remember, all the surveys said Pres. Clinton was going to be deciding this issue and many indicated she would have a Democratic Senate and possibly House to help her.

Far too many people are scared of that and all it entails, even though that fear is not justified.  Not to mention govenors and senators.

The governors would be happy with Medicare for all IF is replaces Medicaid.  However, even Democrats in Congress have not tried that manuver.

The elephant in the room is the tremendous cost of Medicare, Medicaid and all other government funded health care.  And it is going up.

We absolutely need for there to be a commission to study health care and health care funding in America.  Two very different propostitions.  The commission should be made up of representatives of all stakeholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the U.S. Ready for a Single-Payer Health Care System?

 

"...While there may be openings for bipartisan compromise to address the weaknesses of the ACA,  the core of the ACA framework is unstable — a hostage to the market and political fortune. By contrast, a single-payer model stands to be much more durable and provides a chance to build a health care system around the well-being of patients rather than the profits of providers and insurers.....

 

 

If implemented correctly, a centralized payment structure can create a health care system that is genuinely organized around health. It may seem counterintuitive to suggest that the U.S. system is not organized around health, but this truth has long been obvious to anyone who follows this issue or to anyone who has ever had to seek care in a time of need. Over and over, we have seen how the U.S. health care system produces a vast array of increasingly expensive drugs and treatments that few can access without high-quality insurance.

 

A single-payer model could change this — not by nationalizing health care outright but by incentivizing new payment structures such as bundled payments, accountable care organizations, and other population-based models.....

 

https://hbr.org/2017/07/is-the-u-s-ready-for-a-single-payer-health-care-system

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In recent months, public support for Medicare for All has surged, leading some commentators to argue that it is the "inevitable" successor to the prevailing for-profit healthcare model.

 

Progressive groups leading the resistance against Trumpcare have repeatedly emphasized that it is not enough to defend Obamacare. An ambitious alternative, activists have argued, must be the end goal, given the deep flaws within the current healthcare system that make it one of the worst-performing in the industrialized world.

As Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health, argues in an analysis for the Harvard Business Review, "there is no reason to think that the status quo is immutable." ...

 

...the Democratic Party is a strong midterm wave and a little inter-party soul-searching away from a chance at finally fulfilling the left's greatest healthcare dream, and unlike the GOP's healthcare dream, it would actually help millions rather than hurt them," concludes Bustle's Chris Tognotti. "While it might not be easy, or entirely without risk, it's at the very least an issue worth fighting for."

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/19/joining-single-payer-chorus-al-gore-says-profit-system-had-its-chance?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am directly taxed about $400 per year for total health care in Canada.  In any event it is so inconsequential that I don't pay much attention to it and gone is the worry of what do I do if ...

That does not include prescription drugs but even then the government subsidizes that cost based on a person's income.

You can still get private insurance if you like through your place of work.

I would think that a greater population might make coverage even cheaper per capita.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am directly taxed about $400 per year for total health care in Canada.  In any event it is so inconsequential that I don't pay much attention to it and gone is the worry of what do I do if ...

That does not include prescription drugs but even then the government subsidizes that cost based on a person's income.

You can still get private insurance if you like through your place of work.

I would think that a greater population might make coverage even cheaper per capita.

 

Is the amount one has to pay in Canada a flat rate, regardless of income,  or as a percentage of income?    (I would assume how much one earns impacts how much one pays and that one must also pay for dependents,  like children).    

 

Note that the population size isn't as much of a factor as the percentage of people earning an income.    A government can't get any money from people that do NOT earn an income (e.g. retired folks, children,  unemployed,  refuse to work etc..).

 

Anyhow, I agree with your other post that logically a single source system should be cost neutral,  if not cheaper,  as it relates to everyone being covered, but,  that only works if the percentage of people paying into the system and the nation's mean income is stable.   E.g. in Japan with the percentage of retired people growing at a rapid rate and due to declining birth rates and lack of immigration, not being offset by an increase in the number (percentage) of people paying into the system,  the tax rate of those that are paying into the system is escalating as well as increasing Japan's massive debt.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Note that the population size isn't as much of a factor as the percentage of people earning an income.    A government can't get any money from people that do NOT earn an income (e.g. retired folks, children,  unemployed,  refuse to work etc..).

 

 

Just to be pedantic, retired people do have incomes.  Many have very large incomes in fact.  The over 65 demographic in America today has more disposable income than any other group.  We all talk about living on a fixed income, but in reality it isn't fixed as much as many others.

Realize that you qualified it with "earned," but what difference should that make in essentially "taxing" people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be pedantic, retired people do have incomes.  Many have very large incomes in fact.  The over 65 demographic in America today has more disposable income than any other group.  We all talk about living on a fixed income, but in reality it isn't fixed as much as many others.

Realize that you qualified it with "earned," but what difference should that make in essentially "taxing" people?

 

Yes, I should have been clear in what I meant by income:  employment earnings.    As for 'but what difference should it make';   There has always been a difference (as far as I can recall)  in that non employment earnings are taxed at the capital gains rate (with a lot more exceptions).    But yea, it doesn't mean that any and all types of income couldn't be taxed.   An additional question would be if the tax rate is different based on the type of income.      Either way it would be difficult to come up with an equitable tax rate and also how to deal with the transition period.   E.g.  I've been paying a Medicare tax for decades and in less than a decade I'll qualify for Medicare.     People in my age group shouldn't have to pay the same rate (either before we retire and especially once we retire) as those that are decades away from retiring and paid that Medicare tax for a lot shorter period.    The same goes for those that are already retired.   

 

Not saying any of the above means that the USA shouldn't move to remove for-profit insurance companies and to a singer-payer or Swiss type system,  just that there are some very complex issues that would have to be addressed to get us there (and I'm skeptical  that there is the brain power in DC able to address them). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck Schumer Says Senate Democrats Are Open To Single-Payer Health Care-

 

 

"He acknowledged that Democrats failed to win over voters in the 2016 election with a clear economic message, and said his coalition plans to change that.

“We were too cautious, we were too namby-pamby, this is sharp, bold and will appeal to both the old Obama coalition ... and the Democratic voters who deserted us for Trump,” he said......

 

“We’re going to look at broader things [for health care],” he said. “Single-payer is one of them.. Many things are on the table. Medicare for people above 55 is on the table. A buy-in to Medicare is on the table. Buy-in to Medicaid is on the table. On the broader issues, we will start examining them once we stabilize the [health care] system.”....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chuck-schumer-single-payer_us_5974b05be4b00e4363e0164e

 

<_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I should have been clear in what I meant by income:  employment earnings.    As for 'but what difference should it make';   There has always been a difference (as far as I can recall)  in that non employment earnings are taxed at the capital gains rate (with a lot more exceptions).    But yea, it doesn't mean that any and all types of income couldn't be taxed.   An additional question would be if the tax rate is different based on the type of income.      Either way it would be difficult to come up with an equitable tax rate and also how to deal with the transition period.   E.g.  I've been paying a Medicare tax for decades and in less than a decade I'll qualify for Medicare.     People in my age group shouldn't have to pay the same rate (either before we retire and especially once we retire) as those that are decades away from retiring and paid that Medicare tax for a lot shorter period.    The same goes for those that are already retired.   

 

Not saying any of the above means that the USA shouldn't move to remove for-profit insurance companies and to a singer-payer or Swiss type system,  just that there are some very complex issues that would have to be addressed to get us there (and I'm skeptical  that there is the brain power in DC able to address them). 

What we need is a Commission on Health Care with representatives of all stakeholders involved.

AND a Commission on Taxes and Revenue with representatives of all stakeholders involved.

Heck, why not a Commission on Expenditures as well.

Would take 24 to 48 months for each, but might be worth it.  The Federal (and most state) budgets are simply cobbled together taxes, revenue sources, expenditures, pet projects and who knows what else.

For example, we have not had a Base Realignment Commission since 2005, but supposed to have them more frequently.  This is a commission to determine which military facilities/units need to be closed or expanded.  The expanded ones receive the units and programs from the closed ones that are actually worth saving.  Instead Congress just authorizes more personnel, more generals and admirals with concomitant huge staffs, more ships, more planes, ad infinitum.  Why?  Because their districts or states or employers benefit from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Trumpcare Vote Looming, Medicare For All Supporters Set to March-

 

"Now is the time to guarantee healthcare as a right for everyone and we will take that message to Congress every day until it happens."

 

"The march is one component of a larger grassroots effort in order to increase pressure on Senators to kill [Trumpcare] and support the expansion of healthcare to all Americans," Our Revolution said in a statement ahead of the event. "The march will focus on expanding Medicare by calling on Congress to go beyond fighting to prevent the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Even with the ACA, there are as many as 29 million Americans without adequate access to healthcare."

 

Specifically, the mass demonstration will call for lawmakers to back the Medicare for All bill—H.R. 676—put forth by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who has remarked that support for the legislation is more widespread than ever......

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/24/trumpcare-vote-looming-medicare-all-supporters-set-march?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Link to post
Share on other sites

This were the very words from Rob Johnson (news anchor) WSAZ Channel 3 News.

 

They are voting on SOMETHING, we just don't know what it is?

 

:blink:

 

I just heard the 11 AM news update on NPR. Apparently the Senators have no idea on what they're voting on either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At a 12:45 closed door Republican senators lunch, intense pressure will be placed on the NO voters. They will discuss the original House version and all the Republican amendments advanced so far.  Who knows what will come out for the actual vote.  This per CNN half hour ago.

 

My understanding is that what McConnell wants is a vote to move the proposed bill to the floor for debate.  Not necessarily to pass a repeal and/or replace bill - at this time.

 

If this move passes, then they will have debates and then vote on the bill with or without amendments. So, those leaning NO could still vote No later.  While Democrats can offer amendments, you can bet they will be speedily "considered" and voted down.  In fact, I imagine all amendments will be speedily considered and voted upon.

 

Then unless they adopt the House bill as is, will have to have conference committee to sort it out.  Then both Houses have to vote on the conference bill.

 

Some of pressure is to use McCain's showing up as reason to vote YES on moving bill to floor debate.

Not to mention the back room pork deals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Medicare For All Is Coming, No Matter [...]
 
 

 

".....the ultimate goal — the goal that reflects both the public’s needs and our shared progressive values — is Medicare for all....

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/medicare-for-all-coming-no-matter-what-they-say/

 

-really think the public's getting tired of the quibbling....

 

Go Big or Go Home ALREADY!

:(

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate voted 51 to 50 with Pence casting tie-breaking vote to approve motion to proceed on the health care bill.  Collins and Murkowski bravely and intelligently voted against it as there is no realistic plan even under consideration.

No actual plan has been approved.  This just means that they will begin debate on the one the House sent over and then amend it (or not).

McCain was a disappointment.  He voted for the bill to proceed, but also said:

“I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now.”  He was actually referring to the bill the House sent over.

 

www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-leaders-press-ahead-with-health-care-vote-in-hopes-of-sustaining-repeal-effort/2017/07/25/2525470c-7126-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.b552fd7cccec&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation&wpmk=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate voted 51 to 50 with Pence casting tie-breaking vote to approve motion to proceed on the health care bill.  Collins and Murkowski bravely and intelligently voted against it as there is no realistic plan even under consideration.

No actual plan has been approved.  This just means that they will begin debate on the one the House sent over and then amend it (or not).

McCain was a disappointment.  He voted for the bill to proceed, but also said:

“I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now.”  He was actually referring to the bill the House sent over.

 

www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-leaders-press-ahead-with-health-care-vote-in-hopes-of-sustaining-repeal-effort/2017/07/25/2525470c-7126-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.b552fd7cccec&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation&wpmk=1

So why the hell did he make the trip? Political drama to help the guy who called him no hero and a loser. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...