Medicare-For-All

[Valjean]

If doctors were to be paid less in the U.S., then there would be fewer of them; hence, there would be a shortage of health care providers here.

That has not been the experience elsewhere in the world. Most doctors don't go into the profession to get rich, and those that do should probably seek their wealth elsewhere.

If medical care were entirely or nearly entirely funded by taxpayers, without substantial insured cost sharing responsibilities, then the health care system would get abused and overly used; hence, the shortage of health care would be further compounded with the shortage of doctors due to the fact single payer systems pay doctors less than what they could make in the free-market system with patients who are self-insured or who are privately insured.

Again, that has not been the experience elsewhere, and the insurance industry does nothing if not drive up costs.

Long waits for seeing a doctor or extreme health care rationing might be acceptable to socialist Europeans, but this would be totally unacceptable to most of us free-market capitalistic Americans.

This long wait argument is getting tedious. The long waits elsewhere in the world are overblown, while the long waits -- or virtual inaccessibility -- here in the US aren't even mentioned.

Unfortunately, neither health care shortages nor health care fraud from single payer health care won't make America great again. America was great without single payer health care when JFK was President, and America can be great once again with a health care system made affordable by tort reform, tax credits, health savings accounts, group discount pricing through health associations, lower-priced insurance options, and shopping for lower priced insurance across state lines.

America in 1960 had a huge, invisible population living in poverty. So what made us great then? Our military prowess?

 

[Valjean]

You think improper payments don't happen with private insurance? I find that very unlikely.

Hospitals routinely overcharge on the first bill, and many patients haven't the expertise to even spot it, much less the means to contest it.

Oh dear, please no, it doesn't have to come down to this when there are better ways to make health care more affordable for the hard-working-class American folks.

Agreed -- and there are examples of them all over the developed world.
The US is not only the richest nation, but the only developed nation without a comprehensive healthcare system.

 

[esmith]

So who the heck is going to invade the US if we cut back on our military a little? We could cut back 90% and still have a powerful military.
Plenty of rich, juicy countries have much smaller militaries than the US, yet manage to survive without the existential paranoia the US seems to exhibit.

If you cut back 90% you would not have a functional military. Or do you just not agree with having a military?

 

[Valjean]

I'm not a doctor, but have schooling and experience as a provider. Across the board, do you think we want to do more than we have to when we already have so much to squeeze into what little time there is? The concern is actually overlooking things because so many providers are so overworked. And it's easy to do when you have clients to see and meetings to attend and people to meet and notes to write and papers to file. You think there is a desire to be bothered with more? Self-inflicted and willingly? Are you aware being on call 24/7 is pretty common?

So, you're complaining about procedures and caution? You think a started job shouldn't be completed? There's nothing wrong with him following procedure to close a wound in order to prevent scaring. It's pretty routine.

If the US want's a good healthcare system, why not subsidize medical training and remove the caps on admissions to medical schools?

 

[Valjean]

If you cut back 90% you would not have a functional military. Or do you just not agree with having a military?

You may have a point -- if the function is to maintain the empire and secure markets for US corporations.
If, however, the military exists "to protect our freedoms!" then 10% of current capacity would be quite sufficient. Other countries with such military strength exist quite happily.

 

[Valjean]

Ok...let's make health care more affordable by way of taxpayer assistance along with insured cost sharing for universal catastrophic health insurance; but a Bernie Sander's version of single payer healthcare where taxpayer funds pay every dollar of everybody's medical bills would be totally non-affordable.

And yet it works elsewhere, as well as Bismarck and Socialized systems.
We think nothing of spending trillions on foreign wars and military bases, or "securing our borders" against ravening hordes of murders and rapists. Yet infrastructure, education and healthcare are too expensive.

What, exactly, is the function of government? Who is the government? It doesn't seem to respond to the desires of the majority of the population. It doesn't seem particularly interested in the "general welfare."

I think the safety, security and happiness of the general population would be better served if we went back to a government of, by and for the people, rather than the .01%.

Other, less affluent countries manage universal healthcare systems of one kind or another, often at half the price and with better outcomes, yet the richest country in the world can't afford it.

 

[dianaiad]

So who the heck is going to invade the US if we cut back on our military a little? We could cut back 90% and still have a powerful military.

Great googly moogly.

That is exactly what the 'folks' were saying just before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and for heaven's sake, let us not forget Neville Chamberlain. Don't you guys learn ANYTHING in school?

Plenty of rich, juicy countries have much smaller militaries than the US, yet manage to survive without the existential paranoia the US seems to exhibit.

Yes indeedy. One of them is Japan, as it happens, and the reason they survive is because they depend upon the US to take care of such things.

the same goes for the other 'rich, juicy countries."

Perhaps (well, no 'perhaps' about it) we shouldn't have put ourselves in that position, but we did and we are....and the example of what would happen should we go with your suggestion is more like what happens to a sick whale in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy than anything else.

Sometimes I really do have to wonder if any of you people have ever read history...even when filtered through the modern education system, and if ANY of you have heard of George Santayana...or the five or six people who said it before him; that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Salvador]

And yet it works elsewhere, as well as Bismarck and Socialized systems.
We think nothing of spending trillions on foreign wars and military bases, or "securing our borders" against ravening hordes of murders and rapists. Yet infrastructure, education and healthcare are too expensive.

What, exactly, is the function of government? Who is the government? It doesn't seem to respond to the desires of the majority of the population. It doesn't seem particularly interested in the "general welfare."

I think the safety, security and happiness of the general population would be better served if we went back to a government of, by and for the people, rather than the .01%.

Other, less affluent countries manage universal healthcare systems of one kind or another, often at half the price and with better outcomes, yet the richest country in the world can't afford it.

And yet it works elsewhere, as well as Bismarck and Socialized systems.
We think nothing of spending trillions on foreign wars and military bases, or "securing our borders" against ravening hordes of murders and rapists. Yet infrastructure, education and healthcare are too expensive.

What, exactly, is the function of government? Who is the government? It doesn't seem to respond to the desires of the majority of the population. It doesn't seem particularly interested in the "general welfare."

I think the safety, security and happiness of the general population would be better served if we went back to a government of, by and for the people, rather than the .01%.

Other, less affluent countries manage universal healthcare systems of one kind or another, often at half the price and with better outcomes, yet the richest country in the world can't afford it.

Where is there a single payer system where taxpayers pay all the medical bills of everybody? Insured cost sharing of medical bills keeps the health care system supply and demand in order. If taxpayers were to fund every dollar of everyone's medical bills, then there'd be a shortage of providers, unreasonable wait times for getting basic services, and health care rationing. Is this what you'd like? I think not.

 

[Valjean]

As far as I


Where is there a single payer system where taxpayers pay all the medical bills of everybody? Insured cost sharing of medical bills keeps the health care system supply and demand in order. If taxpayers were to fund every dollar of everyone's medical bills, then there'd be a shortage of providers, unreasonable wait times for getting basic services, and health care rationing. Is this what you'd like? I think not.

"All" covers a lot of ground. Are breast implants or Botox "basic services?"
Most developed countries have systems that cover medically necessary procedures. Elective and "non-emergent" procedures may have wait times, but this is true in the US as well -- though if you're rich enough you may be able to grease the wheels with a little extra green.
As for rationing, we already have it, and it's the insurance industry that's at the heart of it.
Drs don't prescribe the treatments they think would be most effective, they prescribe what they think insurance companies will pay for. If the insurance company thinks a patient's going to cost them too much, it can usually find some way to curtail treatment or drop the client altogether. It's an intricate, time and money wasting dance between doctors, insurance clerks, coding secretaries, &c.

We have socialized fire and police services. You get the services you need and never see a bill. Healthcare could be the same.